Podcasts about plaintiffs

I am Rolf Claessen and together with my co-host Ken Suzan I am welcoming you to episode 169 of our podcast IP Fridays! Today's interview guest is Prof. Aloys Hüttermann, co-founder of my patent law firm Michalski Hüttermann & Partner and a true expert on the Unified Patent Court. He has written several books about the new system and we talk about all the things that plaintiffs and defendants can learn from the first decisions of the court and what they mean for strategic decisions of the parties involved. But before we jump into this very interesting interview, I have news for you! The US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is planning rule changes that would make it virtually impossible for third parties to challenge invalid patents before the patent office. Criticism has come from the EFF and other inventor rights advocates: the new rules would play into the hands of so-called non-practicing entities (NPEs), as those attacked would have few cost-effective ways to have questionable patents deleted. The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) reports a new record in international patent applications: in 2024, around 3.7 million patent applications were filed worldwide – an increase of 4.9% over the previous year. The main drivers were Asian countries (China alone accounted for 1.8 million), while demand for trademark protection has stabilized after the pandemic decline. US rapper Eminem is taking legal action in Australia against a company that sells swimwear under the name “Swim Shady.” He believes this infringes on his famous “Slim Shady” brand. The case illustrates that even humorous allusions to well-known brand names can lead to legal conflicts. A new ruling by the Unified Patent Court (UPC) demonstrates its cross-border impact. In “Fujifilm v. Kodak,” the local chamber in Mannheim issued an injunction that extends to the UK despite Brexit. The UPC confirmed its jurisdiction over the UK parts of a European patent, as the defendant Kodak is based in a UPC member state. A dispute over standard patents is looming at the EU level: the Legal Affairs Committee (JURI) of the European Parliament voted to take the European Commission to the European Court of Justice. The reason for this is the Commission’s controversial withdrawal of a draft regulation on the licensing of standard-essential patents (SEPs). Parliament President Roberta Metsola is to decide by mid-November whether to file the lawsuit. In trademark law, USPTO Director Squires reported on October 31, 2025, that a new unit (“Trademark Registration Protection Office”) had removed approximately 61,000 invalid trademark applications from the registries. This cleanup of the backlog relieved the examining authority and accelerated the processing of legitimate applications. Now let's jump into the interview with Aloys Hüttermann: The Unified Patent Court Comes of Age – Insights from Prof. Aloys Hüttermann The Unified Patent Court (UPC) has moved from a long-discussed project to a living, breathing court system that already shapes patent enforcement in Europe. In a recent IP Fridays interview, Prof. Aloys Hüttermann – founder and equity partner at Michalski · Hüttermann & Partner and one of the earliest commentators on the UPC – shared his experiences from the first years of practice, as well as his view on how the UPC fits into the global patent litigation landscape. This article summarises the key points of that conversation and is meant as an accessible overview for in-house counsel, patent attorneys and business leaders who want to understand what the UPC means for their strategy. How Prof. Hüttermann Became “Mr. UPC” Prof. Hüttermann has been closely involved with the UPC for more than a decade. When it became clear, around 13 years ago, that the European project of a unified patent court and a unitary patent was finally going to happen, he recognised that this would fundamentally change patent enforcement in Europe. He started to follow the legislative and political developments in detail and went beyond mere observation. As author and editor of several books and a major commentary on the UPC, he helped shape the discussion around the new system. His first book on the UPC appeared in 2016 – years before the court finally opened its doors in 2023. What fascinated him from the beginning was the unique opportunity to witness the creation of an entirely new court system, to analyse how it would be built and, where possible, to contribute to its understanding and development. It was clear to him that this system would be a “game changer” for European patent enforcement. UPC in the Global Triangle: Europe, the US and China In practice, most international patent disputes revolve around three major regions: the UPC territory in Europe, the United States and China. Each of these regions has its own procedural culture, cost structure and strategic impact. From a territorial perspective, the UPC is particularly attractive because it can, under the right conditions, grant pan-European injunctions that cover a broad range of EU Member States with a single decision. This consolidation of enforcement is something national courts in Europe simply cannot offer. From a cost perspective, the UPC is significantly cheaper than US litigation, especially if one compares the cost of one UPC action with a bundle of separate national cases in large European markets. When viewed against the territorial reach and procedural speed, the “bang for the buck” is very compelling. China is again a different story. The sheer volume of cases there is enormous, with tens of thousands of patent infringement cases per year. Chinese courts are known for their speed; first-instance decisions within about a year are common. In this respect they resemble the UPC more than the US does. The UPC also aims at a roughly 12 to 15 month time frame for first-instance cases where validity is at issue. The US, by contrast, features extensive discovery, occasionally jury trials and often longer timelines. The procedural culture is very different. The UPC, like Chinese courts, operates without discovery in the US sense, which makes proceedings more focused on the written record and expert evidence that the parties present, and less on pre-trial disclosure battles. Whether a company chooses to litigate in the US, the UPC, China, or some combination of these forums will depend on where the key markets and assets are. However, in Prof. Hüttermann's view, once Europe is an important market, it is hard to justify ignoring the UPC. He expects the court's caseload and influence to grow strongly over the coming years. A Landmark UPC Case: Syngenta v. Sumitomo A particularly important case in which Prof. Hüttermann was involved is the Syngenta v. Sumitomo matter, concerning a composition patent. This case has become a landmark in UPC practice for several reasons. First, the Court of Appeal clarified a central point about the reach of UPC injunctions. It made clear that once infringement is established in one Member State, this will usually be sufficient to justify a pan-European injunction covering all UPC countries designated by the patent. That confirmation gave patent owners confidence that the UPC can in fact deliver broad, cross-border relief in one go. Second, the facts of the case raised novel issues about evidence and territorial reach. The allegedly infringing product had been analysed based on a sample from the Czech Republic, which is not part of the UPC system. Later, the same product with the same name was marketed in Bulgaria, which is within UPC territory. The Court of Appeal held that the earlier analysis of the Czech sample could be relied on for enforcement in Bulgaria. This showed that evidence from outside the UPC territory can be sufficient, as long as it is properly linked to the products marketed within the UPC. Third, the Court of Appeal took the opportunity to state its view on inventive step. It confirmed that combining prior-art documents requires a “pointer”, in line with the EPO's problem-solution approach. The mere theoretical possibility of extracting a certain piece of information from a document does not suffice to justify an inventive-step attack. This is one of several decisions where the UPC has shown a strong alignment with EPO case law on substantive patentability. For Prof. Hüttermann personally, the case was also a lesson in oral advocacy before the UPC. During the two appeal hearings, the presiding judge asked unexpected questions that required quick and creative responses while the hearing continued. His practical takeaway is that parties should appear with a small, well-coordinated team: large enough to allow someone to work on a tricky question in the background, but small enough to remain agile. Two or three lawyers seem ideal; beyond that, coordination becomes difficult and “too many cooks spoil the broth”. A Game-Changing CJEU Decision: Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte v. Electrolux Surprisingly, one of the most important developments for European patent litigation in the past year did not come from the UPC at all, but from the Court of Justice of the European Union. In Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte v. Electrolux, the CJEU revisited the rules on cross-border jurisdiction under the Brussels I Recast Regulation (Brussels Ia). Previously, under what practitioners often referred to as the GAT/LuK regime, a court in one EU country was largely prevented from granting relief for alleged infringement in another country if the validity of the foreign patent was contested there. This significantly limited the possibilities for cross-border injunctions. In Bosch, the CJEU changed course. Without going into all procedural details, the essence is that courts in the EU now have broader powers to grant cross-border relief when certain conditions are met, particularly when at least one defendant is domiciled in the forum state. The concept of an “anchor defendant” plays a central role: if you sue one group company in its home forum, other group companies in other countries, including outside the EU, can be drawn into the case. This has already had practical consequences. German courts, for example, have issued pan-European injunctions covering around twenty countries in pharmaceutical cases. There are even attempts to sue European companies for infringement of US patents based on acts in the US, using the logic of Bosch as a starting point. How far courts will ultimately go remains to be seen, but the potential is enormous. For the UPC, this development is highly relevant. The UPC operates in the same jurisdictional environment as national courts, and many defendants in UPC cases will be domiciled in UPC countries. This increases the likelihood that the UPC, too, can leverage the broadened possibilities for cross-border relief. In addition, we have already seen UPC decisions that include non-EU countries such as the UK within the scope of injunctions, in certain constellations. The interaction between UPC practice and the Bosch jurisprudence of the CJEU is only beginning to unfold. Does the UPC Follow EPO Case Law? A key concern for many patent owners and practitioners is whether the UPC will follow the EPO's Boards of Appeal or develop its own, possibly divergent, case law on validity. On procedural matters, the UPC is naturally different from the EPO. It has its own rules of procedure, its own timelines and its own tools, such as “front-loaded” pleadings and tight limits on late-filed material. On substantive law, however, Prof. Hüttermann's conclusion is clear: there is “nothing new under the sun”. The UPC's approach to novelty, inventive step and added matter is very close to that of the EPO. The famous “gold standard” for added matter appears frequently in UPC decisions. Intermediate generalisations are treated with the same suspicion as at the EPO. In at least one case, the UPC revoked a patent for added matter even though the EPO had granted it in exactly that form. The alignment is not accidental. The UPC only deals with European patents granted by the EPO; it does not hear cases on purely national patents. If the UPC were more generous than the EPO, many patents would never reach it. If it were systematically stricter, patentees would be more tempted to opt out of the system. In practice, the UPC tends to apply the EPO's standards and, where anything differs, it is usually a matter of factual appreciation rather than a different legal test. For practitioners, this has a very practical implication: if you want to predict how the UPC will decide on validity, the best starting point is to ask how the EPO would analyse the case. The UPC may not always reach the same result in parallel EPO opposition proceedings, but the conceptual framework is largely the same. Trends in UPC Practice: PIs, Equivalents and Division-Specific Styles Even in its early years, certain trends and differences between UPC divisions can be observed. On preliminary injunctions, the local division in Düsseldorf has taken a particularly proactive role. It has been responsible for most of the ex parte PIs granted so far and applies a rather strict notion of urgency, often considering one month after knowledge of the infringement as still acceptable, but treating longer delays with scepticism. Other divisions tend to see two months as still compatible with urgency, and they are much more cautious with ex parte measures. Munich, by contrast, has indicated a strong preference for inter partes PI proceedings and appears reluctant to grant ex parte relief at all. A judge from Munich has even described the main action as the “fast” procedure and the inter partes PI as the “very fast” one, leaving little room for an even faster ex parte track. There are also differences in how divisions handle amendments and auxiliary requests in PI proceedings. Munich has suggested that if a patentee needs to rely on claim amendments or auxiliary requests in a PI, the request is unlikely to succeed. Other divisions have been more open to considering auxiliary requests. The doctrine of equivalents is another area where practice is not yet harmonised. The Hague division has explicitly applied a test taken from Dutch law in at least one case and found infringement by equivalence. However, the Court of Appeal has not yet endorsed a specific test, and in another recent Hague case the same division did not apply that Dutch-law test again. The Mannheim division has openly called for the development of an autonomous, pan-European equivalence test, but has not yet fixed such a test in a concrete decision. This is clearly an area to watch. Interim conferences are commonly used in most divisions to clarify issues early on, but Düsseldorf often dispenses with them to save time. In practice, interim conferences can be very helpful for narrowing down the issues, though parties should not expect to be able to predict the final decision from what is discussed there. Sometimes topics that dominate the interim conference play little or no role in the main oral hearing. A Front-Loaded System and Typical Strategic Mistakes UPC proceedings are highly front-loaded and very fast. A defendant usually has three months from service of the statement of claim to file a full statement of defence and any counterclaim for revocation. This is manageable, but only if the time is used wisely. One common strategic problem is that parties lose time at the beginning and only develop a clear strategy late in the three-month period. According to Prof. Hüttermann, it is crucial to have a firm strategy within the first two or three weeks and then execute it consistently. Constantly changing direction is a recipe for failure in such a compressed system. Another characteristic is the strict attitude towards late-filed material. It is difficult to introduce new documents or new inventive-step attacks later in the procedure. In some cases even alternative combinations of already-filed prior-art documents have been viewed as “new” attacks and rejected as late. At the appeal stage, the Court of Appeal has even considered new arguments based on different parts of a book already in the file as potentially late-filed. This does not mean that parties should flood the court with dozens of alternative attacks in the initial brief. In one revocation action, a plaintiff filed about fifty different inventive-step attacks, only to be told by the court that this was not acceptable and that the attacks had to be reduced and structured. The UPC is not a body conducting ex officio examination. It is entitled to manage the case actively and to ask parties to focus on the most relevant issues. Evidence Gathering, Protective Letters and the Defendant's Perspective The UPC provides powerful tools for both sides. Evidence inspection is becoming more common, not only at trade fairs but also at company premises. This can be a valuable tool for patentees, but it also poses a serious risk for defendants who may suddenly face court-ordered inspections. From the perspective of potential defendants, protective letters are an important instrument, especially in divisions like Düsseldorf where ex parte PIs are possible. A well-written protective letter, filed in advance, can significantly reduce the risk of a surprise injunction. The court fees are moderate, but the content of the protective letter must be carefully prepared; a poor submission can cause more harm than good. Despite the strong tools available to patentees, Prof. Hüttermann does not view the UPC as unfair to defendants. If a defendant files a solid revocation counterclaim, the pressure shifts to the patentee, who then has only two months to reply, prepare all auxiliary requests and adapt the enforcement strategy. This is even more demanding than at the EPO, because the patentee must not only respond to validity attacks but also ensure that any amended claims still capture the allegedly infringing product. It is entirely possible to secure the survival of a patent with an auxiliary request that no longer covers the defendant's product. In that scenario, the patentee has “won” on validity but lost the infringement case. Managing this tension under tight time limits is a key challenge of UPC practice. The Future Role of the UPC and How to Prepare Today the UPC hears a few hundred cases per year, compared with several thousand patent cases in the US and tens of thousands in China. Nevertheless, both the court itself and experienced practitioners see significant growth potential. Prof. Hüttermann expects case numbers to multiply in the medium term. Whether the UPC will become the first choice forum in global disputes or remain one pillar in parallel proceedings alongside the US and China will depend on the strategies of large patentees and the evolution of case law. However, the court is well equipped: it covers a large, economically important territory, is comparatively cost-effective and offers fast procedures with robust remedies. For companies that may end up before the UPC, preparation is essential. On the offensive side, that means building strong evidence and legal arguments before filing, being ready to proceed quickly and structured, and understanding the specific styles of the relevant divisions. On the defensive side, it may mean filing protective letters in risk-exposed markets, preparing internal processes for rapid reaction if a statement of claim arrives, and taking inspection requests seriously. Conclusion The Unified Patent Court has quickly moved from theory to practice. It offers pan-European relief, fast and front-loaded procedures, and a substantive approach that closely mirrors the EPO's case law. At the same time, national and EU-level developments like the Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte v. Electrolux decision are reshaping the jurisdictional framework in which the UPC operates, opening the door for far-reaching cross-border injunctions. For patent owners and potential defendants alike, the message is clear: the UPC is here to stay and will become more important year by year. Those who invest the time to understand its dynamics now – including its alignment with the EPO, the differences between divisions, and the strategic implications of its procedures – will be in a much better position when the first UPC dispute lands on their desk. Here is the full transcript of the interview: Rolf Claessen:Today's interview guest is Prof. Aloys Hüttermann. He is founder and equity partner of my firm, Michalski · Hüttermann & Partner. More importantly for today's interview, he has written several books about the Unified Patent Court. The first one already came out in 2016. He is co-editor and author of one of the leading commentaries on the UPC and has gained substantial experience in UPC cases so far – one of them even together with me. Thank you very much for being on IP Fridays again, Aloys. Aloys Hüttermann:Thank you for inviting me, it's an honour. How did you get so deeply involved in the UPC? Rolf Claessen:Before we dive into the details, how did you end up so deeply involved in the Unified Patent Court? And what personally fascinates you about this court? Aloys Hüttermann:This goes back quite a while – roughly 13 years. At that time it became clear that, after several failed attempts, Europe would really get a pan-European court and a pan-European patent, and that this time it was serious. I thought: this is going to be the future. That interested me a lot, both intellectually and practically. A completely new system was being built. You could watch how it evolved – and, if possible, even help shape it a bit. It was also obvious to me that this would be a complete game changer. Nobody expected that it would take until 2023 before the system actually started operating, but now it is here. I became heavily interested early on. As you mentioned, my first book on the UPC was published in 2016, in the expectation that the system would start soon. It took a bit longer, but now we finally have it. UPC vs. US and China – speed, cost and impact Rolf Claessen:Before we go deeper into the UPC, let's zoom out. If you compare litigation before the UPC with patent litigation in the US and in China – in terms of speed, cost and the impact of decisions – what are the key differences that a business leader should understand? Aloys Hüttermann:If you look at the three big regions – the UPC territory in Europe, the US and China – these are the major economic areas for many technology companies. One important point is territorial reach. In the UPC, if the conditions are met, you can get pan-European injunctions that cover many EU Member States in one go. We will talk about this later in more detail. On costs there is a huge difference between the US and the UPC. The UPC is much cheaper than US litigation, especially once you look at the number of countries you can cover with one case if the patent has been validated widely. China is different again. The number of patent infringement cases there is enormous. I have seen statistics of around 40,000 infringement cases per year in China. That is huge – compared with roughly 164 UPC infringement cases in the first year and maybe around 200 in the current year. On speed, Chinese courts are known to be very fast. You often get a first-instance decision in about a year. The UPC is comparable: if there is a counterclaim for revocation, you are looking at something like 12 to 15 months for a first-instance decision. The US can be slower, and the procedure is very different. You have full discovery, you may have juries. None of that exists at the UPC. From that perspective, Chinese and UPC proceedings are more similar to each other than either is to the US. The UPC is still a young court. We have to see how influential its case law will be worldwide in the long run. What we already see, at least in Germany, is a clear trend away from purely national patent litigation and towards the UPC. That is inside Europe. The global impact will develop over time. When is the UPC the most powerful tool? Rolf Claessen:Let's take the perspective of a global company. It has significant sales in Europe and in the US and production or key suppliers in China. In which situations would you say the UPC is your most powerful tool? And when might the US or China be the more strategic battleground? Aloys Hüttermann:To be honest, I would almost always consider bringing a case before the UPC. The “bang for the buck” is very good. The UPC is rather fast. That alone already gives you leverage in negotiations. The threat of a quick, wide-reaching injunction is a strong negotiation tool. Whether you litigate in the US instead of the UPC, or in addition, or whether you also go to China – that depends heavily on the individual case: where the products are sold, where the key markets are, where the defendant has assets, and so on. But in my view, once you have substantial sales in Europe, you should seriously consider the UPC. And for that reason alone I expect case numbers at the UPC to increase significantly in the coming years. A landmark UPC case: Syngenta vs. Sumitomo (composition patent) Rolf Claessen:You have already been involved in several UPC cases – and one of them together with me, which was great fun. Looking at the last 12 to 18 months, is there a case, decision or development that you find particularly noteworthy – something that really changed how you think about UPC litigation or how companies should prepare? Aloys Hüttermann:The most important UPC case I have been involved in so far is the Syngenta v. Sumitomo case on a composition patent. It has become a real landmark and was even mentioned in the UPC's annual report. It is important for several reasons. First, it was one of the first cases in which the Court of Appeal said very clearly: if you have established infringement in one Member State, that will usually be enough for a pan-European injunction covering all UPC countries designated by the patent. That is a powerful statement about the reach of UPC relief. Second, the facts were interesting. The patent concerned a composition. We had analysed a sample that had been obtained in the Czech Republic, which is not a UPC country. Later, the same product was marketed under the same name in Bulgaria, which is in the UPC. The question was whether the analysis of the Czech sample could be used as a basis for enforcement in Bulgaria. The Court of Appeal said yes, that was sufficient. Third, the Court of Appeal took the opportunity to say something about inventive step. It more or less confirmed that the UPC's approach is very close to the EPO's problem-solution approach. It emphasised that, if you want to combine prior-art documents, you need a “pointer” to do so. The mere theoretical possibility that a skilled person could dig a particular piece of information out of a document is not enough. For me personally, the most memorable aspect of this case was not the outcome – that was largely in line with what we had expected – but the oral hearings at the appeal stage. We had two hearings. In both, the presiding judge asked us a question that we had not anticipated at all. And then you have about 20 minutes to come up with a convincing answer while the hearing continues. We managed it, but it made me think a lot about how you should prepare for oral hearings at the UPC. My conclusion is: you should go in with a team, but not too big. In German we say, “Zu viele Köche verderben den Brei” – too many cooks spoil the broth. Two or three people seems ideal. One of them can work quietly on such a surprise question at the side, while the others continue arguing the case. In the end the case went very well for us, so I can speak about it quite calmly now. But in the moment your heart rate definitely goes up. The CJEU's Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte v. Electrolux decision – a real game changer Rolf Claessen:You also mentioned another development that is not even a UPC case, but still very important for European patent litigation. Aloys Hüttermann:Yes. In my view, the most important case of the last twelve months is not a UPC decision but a judgment of the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU): Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte v. Electrolux. This is going to be a real game changer for European IP law, and I am sure we have not seen the end of its effects yet. One example: someone has recently sued BMW before the Landgericht München I, a German court, for infringement of a US patent based on acts in the US. The argument is that this could be backed by the logic of Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte v. Electrolux. We do not know yet what the court will do with that, but the fact that people are trying this shows how far-reaching the decision might be. Within the UPC we have already seen injunctions being issued for countries outside the UPC territory and even outside the EU, for example including the UK. So you see how these developments start to interact. Rolf Claessen:For listeners who have not followed the case so closely: in very simple terms, the CJEU opened the door for courts in one EU country to rule on patent infringement that took place in other countries as well, right? Aloys Hüttermann:Exactly. Before Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte v. Electrolux we had what was often called the GAT/LuK regime. The basic idea was: if you sue someone in, say, Germany for infringement of a European patent, and you also ask for an injunction for France, and the defendant then challenges the validity of the patent in France, the German court cannot grant you an injunction covering France. The Bosch decision changed that. The legal basis is the Brussels I Recast Regulation (Brussels Ia), which deals with jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters in the EU. It is not specific to IP; it applies to civil cases generally, but it does have some provisions that are relevant for patents. In Bosch, a Swedish court asked the CJEU for guidance on cross-border injunctions. The CJEU more or less overturned its old GAT/LuK case law. Now, in principle, if the defendant is domiciled in a particular Member State, the courts of that state can also grant cross-border relief for other countries, under certain conditions. We will not go into all the details here – that could fill a whole separate IP Fridays episode – but one important concept is the “anchor defendant”. If you sue a group of companies and at least one defendant is domiciled in the forum state, then other group companies in other countries – even outside the EU, for example in Hong Kong – can be drawn into the case and affected by the decision. This is not limited to the UPC, but of course it is highly relevant for UPC litigation. Statistically it increases the chances that at least one defendant will be domiciled in a UPC country, simply because there are many of them. And we have already seen courts like the Landgericht München I grant pan-European injunctions for around 20 countries in a pharmaceutical case. Rolf Claessen:Just to clarify: does it have to be the headquarters of the defendant in that country, or is any registered office enough? Aloys Hüttermann:That is one of the open points. If the headquarters are in Europe, then it is clear that subsidiaries outside Europe can be affected as well. If the group's headquarters are outside Europe and only a subsidiary is here, the situation is less clear and we will have to see what the courts make of it. Does the UPC follow EPO case law? Rolf Claessen:Many patent owners and in-house counsel wonder: does the UPC largely follow the case law of the EPO Boards of Appeal, or is it starting to develop its own distinct line? What is your impression so far – both on substantive issues like novelty and inventive step, and on procedural questions? Aloys Hüttermann:On procedure the UPC is, of course, very different. It has its own procedural rules and they are not the same as at the EPO. If we look at patent validity, however, my impression is that there is “nothing new under the sun” – that was the title of a recent talk I gave and will give again in Hamburg. Substantively, the case law of the UPC and the EPO is very similar. For inventive step, people sometimes say the UPC does not use the classical problem-solution approach but a more “holistic” approach – whatever that is supposed to mean. In practice, in both systems you read and interpret prior-art documents and decide what they really disclose. In my view, the “error bar” that comes from two courts simply reading a document slightly differently is much larger than any systematic difference in legal approach. If you look at other grounds, such as novelty and added matter, the UPC even follows the EPO almost verbatim. The famous “gold standard” for added matter appears all over UPC decisions, even if the EPO case numbers are not always cited. The same is true for novelty. So the rule-based, almost “Hilbertian” EPO approach is very much present at the UPC. There is also a structural reason for that. All patents that the UPC currently deals with have been granted by the EPO. The UPC does not handle patents granted only by national offices. If the UPC wanted to deviate from EPO case law and be more generous, then many patents would never reach the UPC in the first place. The most generous approach you can have is the one used by the granting authority – the EPO. So if the UPC wants to be different, it can only be stricter, not more lenient. And there is little incentive to be systematically stricter, because that would reduce the number of patents that are attractive to enforce before the UPC. Patent owners might simply opt out. Rolf Claessen:We also talked about added matter and a recent case where the Court of Appeal was even stricter than the EPO. That probably gives US patent practitioners a massive headache. They already struggle with added-matter rules in Europe, and now the UPC might be even tougher. Aloys Hüttermann:Yes, especially on added matter. I once spoke with a US practitioner who said, “We hope the UPC will move away from intermediate generalisations.” There is no chance of that. We already have cases where the Court of Appeal confirmed that intermediate generalisations are not allowed, in full alignment with the EPO. You mentioned a recent case where a patent was revoked for added matter, even though it had been granted by the EPO in exactly that form. This shows quite nicely what to expect. If you want to predict how the UPC will handle a revocation action, the best starting point is to ask: “What would the EPO do?” Of course, there will still be cases where the UPC finds an invention to be inventive while the EPO, in parallel opposition proceedings, does not – or vice versa. But those are differences in the appreciation of the facts and the prior art, which you will always have. The underlying legal approach is essentially the same. Rolf Claessen:So you do not see a real example yet where the UPC has taken a totally different route from the EPO on validity? Aloys Hüttermann:No, not really. If I had to estimate how the UPC will decide, I would always start from what I think the EPO would have done. Trends in UPC practice: PIs, equivalents, interim conferences Rolf Claessen:If you look across the different UPC divisions and cases: what trends do you see in practice? For example regarding timelines, preliminary injunctions, how validity attacks are handled, and how UPC cases interact with EPO oppositions or national proceedings? Aloys Hüttermann:If you take the most active divisions – essentially the big four in Germany and the local division in The Hague – they all try to be very careful and diligent in their decisions. But you can already see some differences in practice. For preliminary injunctions there is a clear distinction between the local division in Düsseldorf and most other divisions. Düsseldorf considers one month after knowledge of the infringement as still sufficiently urgent. If you wait longer, it is usually considered too late. In many other divisions, two months is still viewed as fine. Düsseldorf has also been the division that issued most of the ex parte preliminary injunctions so far. Apart from one special outlier where a standing judge from Brussels was temporarily sitting in Milan, Düsseldorf is basically the only one. Other divisions have been much more reluctant. At a conference, Judge Pichlmaier from the Munich division once said that he could hardly imagine a situation where his division would grant an ex parte PI. In his words, the UPC has two types of procedure: one that is fast – the normal main action – and one that is very fast – the inter partes PI procedure. But you do not really have an “ultra-fast” ex parte track, at least not in his division. Another difference relates to amendments and auxiliary requests in PI proceedings. In one recent case in Munich the court said more or less that if you have to amend your patent or rely on auxiliary requests in a PI, you lose. Other divisions have been more flexible and have allowed auxiliary requests. Equivalence is another area where we do not have a unified line yet. So far, only the Hague division has clearly found infringement under the doctrine of equivalents and explicitly used a test taken from Dutch law. Whether that test will be approved by the Court of Appeal is completely open – the first case settled, so the Court of Appeal never ruled on it, and a second one is still very recent. Interestingly, there was another Hague decision a few weeks ago where equivalence was on the table, but the division did not apply that Dutch-law test. We do not know yet why. The Mannheim division has written in one decision that it would be desirable to develop an autonomous pan-European test for equivalence, instead of just importing the German, UK or Dutch criteria. But they did not formulate such a test in that case because it was not necessary for the decision. So we will have to see how that evolves. On timelines, one practical difference is that Düsseldorf usually does not hold an interim conference. That saves them some time. Most other divisions do hold interim conferences. Personally, I like the idea because it can help clarify issues. But you cannot safely read the final outcome from these conferences. I have also seen cases where questions raised at the interim conference did not play any role in the main oral hearing. So they are useful for clarification, but not as a crystal ball. Front-loaded proceedings and typical strategic mistakes Rolf Claessen:If you look at the behaviour of parties so far – both patentees and defendants – what are the most common strategic mistakes you see in UPC litigation? And what would a well-prepared company do differently before the first statement of claim is ever filed? Aloys Hüttermann:You know you do not really want me to answer that question… Rolf Claessen:I do! Aloys Hüttermann:All right. The biggest mistake, of course, is that they do not hire me. That is the main problem. Seriously, it is difficult to judge parties' behaviour from the outside. You rarely know the full picture. There may be national proceedings, licensing discussions, settlement talks, and so on in the background. That can limit what a party can do at the UPC. So instead of criticising, I prefer to say what is a good idea at the UPC. The system is very front-loaded and very fast. If you are sued, you have three months to file your statement of defence and your counterclaim for revocation. In my view, three months are manageable – but only if you use the time wisely and do not waste it on things that are not essential. If you receive a statement of claim, you have to act immediately. You should have a clear strategy within maybe two or three weeks and then implement it. If you change your strategy every few weeks, chances are high that you will fail. Another point is that everything is front-loaded. It is very hard to introduce new documents or new attacks later. Some divisions have been a bit generous in individual cases, but the general line is strict. We have seen, for example, that even if you filed a book in first instance, you may not be allowed to rely on a different chapter from the same book for a new inventive-step attack at the appeal stage. That can be regarded as late-filed, because you could have done it earlier. There is also case law saying that if you first argue inventive step as “D1 plus D2”, and later want to argue “D2 plus D1”, that can already be considered a new, late attack. On the other hand, we had a revocation action where the plaintiff filed about 50 different inventive-step attacks in the initial brief. The division then said: this does not work. Please cut them down or put them in a clear hierarchy. In the end, not all of them were considered. The UPC does not conduct an ex officio examination. It is entitled to manage the case and to tell the parties to limit themselves in the interest of a fair and efficient procedure. Rolf Claessen:I have the feeling that the EPO is also becoming more front-loaded – if you want to rely on documents later, you should file them early. But it sounds like the UPC is even more extreme in that regard. Aloys Hüttermann:Yes, that is true. Protective letters, inspections and the defendant's perspective Rolf Claessen:Suppose someone from a company is listening now and thinks: “We might be exposed at the UPC,” or, “We should maybe use the UPC offensively against competitors.” What would you consider sensible first steps before any concrete dispute arises? And looking three to five years ahead, how central do you expect the UPC to become in global patent litigation compared to the US and China? Aloys Hüttermann:Let me start with the second part. I expect the UPC to become significantly more important. If we have around 200 cases this year, that is a good start, but it is still very small compared to, say, 4,000 to 5,000 patent cases per year in the US and 40,000 or so in China. Even François Bürgin and Klaus Grabinski, in interviews, have said that they are happy with the case load, but the potential is much larger. In my view, it is almost inevitable that we will see four or five times as many UPC cases in the not-too-distant future. As numbers grow, the influence of the UPC will grow as well. Whether, in five or ten years, companies will treat the UPC as their first choice forum – or whether they will usually run it in parallel with US litigation in major disputes – remains to be seen. The UPC would be well equipped for that: the territory it covers is large, Europe is still an important economy, and the UPC procedure is very attractive from a company's perspective. On sensible first steps: if you are worried about being sued, a protective letter can make a lot of sense – especially in divisions like Düsseldorf, where ex parte PIs are possible in principle. A protective letter is not very expensive in terms of court fees. There is also an internal system that ensures the court reads it before deciding on urgent measures. Of course, the content must have a certain quality; a poor protective letter can even backfire. If you are planning to sue someone before the UPC, you should be extremely well prepared when you file. You should already have all important documents and evidence at hand. As we discussed, it is hard to introduce new material later. One tool that is becoming more and more popular is inspection – not just at trade fairs, where we already saw cases very early, but also at company premises. Our firm has already handled such an inspection case. That is something you should keep in mind on both sides: it is a powerful evidence-gathering tool, but also a serious risk if you are on the receiving end. From the defendant's perspective, I do not think the UPC is unfair. If you do your job properly and put a solid revocation counterclaim on the table, then the patentee has only two months to prepare a full reply and all auxiliary requests. And there is a twist that makes life even harder for the patentee than at the EPO. At the EPO the question is mainly: do my auxiliary requests overcome the objections and are they patentable? At the UPC there is an additional layer: do I still have infringement under the amended claims? You may save your patent with an auxiliary request that no longer reads on the defendant's product. That is great for validity, but you have just lost the infringement case. You have kept the patent but lost the battle. And all of this under very tight time limits. That creates considerable pressure on both sides. How to contact Prof. Hüttermann Rolf Claessen:Thank you very much for this really great interview, Aloys. Inside our firm you have a nickname: “the walking encyclopedia of the Unified Patent Court” – because you have written so many books about it and have dealt with the UPC for such a long time. What is the best way for listeners to get in touch with you? Aloys Hüttermann:The easiest way is by email. You can simply write to me, and that is usually the best way to contact me. As you may have noticed, I also like to speak. I am a frequent speaker at conferences. If you happen to be at one of the conferences where I am on the programme – for example, next week in Hamburg – feel free to come up to me and ask me anything in person. But email is probably the most reliable first step. Rolf Claessen:Perfect. Thank you very much, Aloys. Aloys Hüttermann:Thank you. It was a pleasure to be on IP Fridays again. Some of your long-time listeners may remember that a few years ago – when you were not yet part of our firm – we already did an episode on the UPC, back when everything was still very speculative. It is great to be back now that the system is actually in place and working. Rolf Claessen:I am very happy to have you back on the show.

This week we go into the dark heart of American Gestapo: Gregory Bovino's Border Patrol, which pushes ICE to become even more aggressive in his fascist feverdream.  Here to help us make sense of this hellscape is Nick Schwellenbach, a Senior Investigator at the Project on Government Oversight and former Communications Director at the U.S. Office of Special Counsel–a government agency set up after Watergate, meant to protect us from the next Nixon–more on that in this week's bonus show out Thursday.  Bovino grew up a Border Patrol fanboy idolizing fascist fiction and now stalks American cities in a Nazi-style trench coat with a taxpayer-funded film crew glamorizing his violent raids. Like Trump is a showman, Bovino is cruelty as a recruitment tool to consolidate power. Under his un-checked leadership, his border patrol army operates deep inside the U.S., smashing car windows, kidnapping U.S. citizens, and rounding up tens of thousands of people, including veterans and children, into detention centers where deaths are spiking at unprecedented rates.  With the help of questions submitted by a Gaslit Nation listener (thank you, Isabel!) we go into all the pressing questions about Bovino's Border Patrol and also ICE, including what happened to the children who disappeared under Trump's first term and what can be done to protect vulnerable immigrants today? As you listen to this episode, which opens with a clip of Bovino justifying shooting protesters with pepper balls, keep in mind Republicans gave ICE, which works closely with Bovino's Border Patrol, $75 billion over the next four years. They're also operating under aggressive weekly quotas. But is their war chest also for general population control?  For our bonus episode this week, we look at the safeguards that could have prevented Trump's return and why they didn't. To listen to the bonus, subscribe to our Patreon at the Truth-Teller level ($5/month) or higher. We are extremely grateful to our listeners who are keeping us afloat during a very difficult economic time. Every bit of support helps give us the freedom to be independent and tell the truth, so thank you again for making Gaslit Nation possible! If America climbs out of this black hole, it will be because people like you, our Gaslit Nation listeners, refused to look away. Want to hear Gaslit Nation ad-free? Join our community of listeners for bonus shows, exclusive Q&A sessions, our group chat, invites to live events like our Monday political salons at 4pm ET over Zoom, and more! Sign up at Patreon.com/Gaslit! EVENTS AT GASLIT NATION: December 1st 4pm ET – Deaf Republic by Ilya Kaminsky + Total Resistance by H. Von Dach – Poetry and guerrilla strategy: tools for survival and defiance. Minnesota Signal group for Gaslit Nation listeners in the state to find each other: join on Patreon.  Vermont Signal group for Gaslit Nation listeners in the state to find each other: join on Patreon.  Arizona-based listeners launched a Signal group for others in the state to connect, join on Patreon.  Indiana-based listeners launched a Signal group for others in the state to join, join on Patreon.  Florida-based listeners are going strong meeting in person. Be sure to join their Signal group, join on Patreon.  Gaslit Nation Salons take place Mondays 4pm ET over Zoom and the first ~40 minutes are recorded and shared on Patreon.com/Gaslit for our community Show Notes:   Where ICE Has Taken The Most People | On The Grid | WIRED https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uD9ETC80HDA NPR report: This year was the deadliest since 2005 for people in ICE custody  https://www.expressnews.com/news/border-mexico/article/ice-deadliest-year-npr-21119815.php Big Budget Act Creates a "Deportation-Industrial Complex": The result will be a lopsided, enforcement-only machine that will be hard to dismantle. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/big-budget-act-creates-deportation-industrial-complex   Man arrested by Ice dies in jail cell in Long Island, New York: This article is more than 1 month old Officials in Nassau county confirmed death of 42-year-old man to Newsday but declined to share details https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/19/ice-death-long-island-ny   Trump officials launch ICE effort to deport unaccompanied migrant children https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-administration-directs-ice-agents-find-deport-unaccompanied-migrant-2025-02-23/ Federal judge says border patrol chief admitted he lied, in ruling limiting federal agents' use of force in Chicago https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/06/us/gregory-bovino-deposition-chicago-immigration   Greg Bovino's Border Patrol Agents Use Disproportionate Force, Data Shows https://www.pogo.org/investigations/greg-bovinos-border-patrol-agents-use-disproportionate-force-data-shows   Fighting for a government that serves the people. https://www.pogo.org/   8-year-old girl dies in Border Patrol custody in Texas, as agency struggles with overcrowding https://apnews.com/article/border-patrol-child-custody-death-harlingen-2e2b27eeb3da669ee17241b8b3ee9ee2   Detainee Death Reporting https://www.ice.gov/detain/detainee-death-reporting   CBP Fatal Encounters Tracker https://www.aclutx.org/en/cbp-fatal-encounters-tracker   FACT FOCUS: Claims that more than 300,000 migrant children are missing lack context https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-misinformation-migrant-children-missing-7ab0cea2fd2238346197429e952baa8b   How they did it: The New York Times exposes migrant child labor exploitation across 50 states https://journalistsresource.org/media/migrant-children-labor-abuse-goldmith/   Homeland Security agents rescue migrant teen sisters from sex traffickers — after they arrived in US as unaccompanied minors https://nypost.com/2025/04/29/us-news/hsi-agents-rescue-teen-migrant-sisters-from-sex-traffickers/   Gaps in Sponsor Screening and Followup Raise Safety Concerns for Unaccompanied Children https://oig.hhs.gov/reports/all/2024/gaps-in-sponsor-screening-and-followup-raise-safety-concerns-for-unaccompanied-children/   Trump's False Claim of Missing Immigrant Children  https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/07/16/trump-false-claim-missing-immigrant-children   Under Joe Biden, Have 85,000 Undocumented Children Gone 'Missing'? https://www.newsweek.com/under-joe-biden-undocumented-children-missing-1812728   Democratic Women's Caucus Open Letter https://juliabrownley.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/dwc-letter-to-dhs-on-ice-impersonators-and-women-s-safety.pdf   How ICE Raids Are Making It Easier for Civilian Men to Assault Immigrant Women: Kylie Cheung argues in this op-ed that a rash of cases of men dressing as plainclothes ICE agents and assaulting immigrant women is possible because ICE agents operate with impunity. https://www.teenvogue.com/story/men-dressed-as-ice-agents-to-assault-immigrant-women-horrifying-trend   Houston man pretended to be ICE agent to rob driver, charging docs allege https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/crime/article/houston-ice-agent-robbery-20395157.php   North Dakota man accused of impersonating an ICE officer when jail staff released an inmate to him https://apnews.com/article/north-dakota-immigration-williston-ice-agent-f89f0f070e5c39cd763a5018017ff332 US sees spate of arrests of civilians impersonating Ice officers https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jun/28/civilians-impersonating-ice-officers   ICE Annual Report Fiscal Year 2022 https://www.ice.gov/doclib/eoy/iceAnnualReportFY2022.pdf Border agent charged with child sex trafficking, fraud in Cochise County https://tucson.com/news/local/border/article_5e596767-4575-485b-88e8-0a6265e5bb41.html The Green Monster: How the Border Patrol became America's most out-of-control law enforcement agency. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/10/border-patrol-the-green-monster-112220/ FBI Warns of Criminals Posing as ICE, Urges Agents to ID Themselves: In a bulletin to law enforcement agencies, the FBI said criminal impersonators are exploiting ICE's image and urged nationwide coordination to distinguish real operations from fakes. https://www.wired.com/story/fbi-warns-of-criminals-posing-as-ice-urges-agents-to-id-themselves/ How a tragic family secret turned Greg Bovino from a quiet country boy into the force of Trump's unflinching border patrol crackdown https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15288355/greg-bovino-border-patrol-family-secret-donald-trump-immigration.html Revealed: Trump administration retreats on combating human trafficking and child exploitation https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/17/trump-human-trafficking-programs-cut Trump administration takes hundreds of migrant children out of their homes, into government custody https://archive.ph/qc65g#selection-2109.7-2109.106 Oversight Agency Says 32,000 Unaccompanied Children Are Missing. But Are They? https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/blog/are-32000-unaccompanied-children-missing/  Judge rules against Department of Homeland Security: "Given the inconsistencies between the BWC footage and the use of force reports, with the BWC footage undermining what agents put in their reports, the Court cannot rely on Parra's [who is Bovino's deputy] broad generalizations of protesters' actions or Defendants' responses to those actions. Turning to Bovino, the Court specifically finds his testimony not credible.  Bovino appeared evasive over the three days of his deposition, either providing "cute" responses to Plaintiffs' counsel's questions or outright lying." "To the extent that agents use ChatGPT to create their use of force reports, this further undermines their credibility and may explain the inaccuracy of these reports when viewed in light of the BWC footage." https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.487571/gov.uscourts.ilnd.487571.281.0_3.pdf

Stories we're following this morning at Progress Texas:With SCOTUS Justice Sam Alito's stay on the El Paso court panel's decision against the Trump map, a full decision of the Supreme Court is next - and could take long enough to end the discussion for the midterms: https://www.elpasotimes.com/story/news/politics/2025/11/22/us-supreme-court-samuel-alito-grants-stay-in-texas-redistricting-lawsuit/87412332007/...The State invoked the "Purcell principle" in its application to Alito, which discourages courts from action interfering with impending elections: https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/texas-asks-scotus-to-reimpose-anti-minority-gerrymander/Texas colleges and universities are becoming nationally notorious for our slipping standards regarding free speech rights on campus: https://www.houstonchronicle.com/opinion/editorials/article/free-speech-ut-college-protest-trump-21198378.php...A faculty committee at Texas A&M has determined that administrators did not have a solid case in firing English professor Melissa McCoul: https://www.texastribune.org/2025/11/22/texas-am-professor-fired-faculty-panel-ruling/...UT Austin remains silent on the Trump compact, even as the deadline to accept or reject passed on Friday: https://www.texastribune.org/2025/11/17/university-of-texas-trump-policy-changes-federal-funding/We're excited to see YOU at one (or both!) of our 2025 Holiday Parties this December in Austin and Dallas - for the first time, featuring live podcast tapings! Tickets and sponsorship opportunities are available now: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://act.progresstexas.org/a/progress-texas-holiday-parties-2025⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Check out our web store, including our newly-expanded Humans Against Greg Abbott collection: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://store.progresstexas.org/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Thanks for listening! Our monthly donors form the backbone of our funding, and if you're a regular, we'd like to invite you to join the team! Find our web store and other ways to support our important work at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://progresstexas.org⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.

This Day in Legal History: Lee Harvey Oswald ShotOn November 24, 1963, two days after President John F. Kennedy's assassination, the nation watched in shock as Lee Harvey Oswald—the alleged assassin—was gunned down on live television. The shooter, Dallas nightclub owner Jack Ruby, entered the basement of the Dallas police headquarters and fatally shot Oswald as he was being transferred to the county jail. The killing unfolded in front of journalists, cameras, and law enforcement, searing itself into the American consciousness and further fueling public distrust in official accounts of the assassination.Though Ruby claimed his act was motivated by grief and a desire to spare Jacqueline Kennedy the ordeal of a trial, his actions raised immediate concerns about the adequacy of security in high-profile cases. Oswald's death eliminated any opportunity for a public trial, which would have offered a transparent legal accounting of the events in Dallas. Ruby was later convicted of murder, though his conviction was overturned on appeal before he died of cancer in 1967.The legal ramifications of Oswald's televised murder were broad and lasting. It led to reforms in detainee protection, prompted scrutiny over media access in sensitive law enforcement operations, and spotlighted the vulnerability of chain of custody and judicial process in emotionally charged cases. The event also highlighted the need for careful separation between law enforcement procedures and the media spectacle surrounding them. Ruby's case prompted legal scholars to revisit the balance between a defendant's right to a fair trial and the public's right to observe proceedings.This legal flashpoint helped set the stage for subsequent debates about pretrial publicity, venue changes, and judicial instructions to mitigate media influence on juries. It also foreshadowed a new era where courtroom access and high-profile criminal justice collided in an age of mass media.The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit will hear arguments in a press freedom case between the Associated Press (AP) and President Donald Trump's administration. The case centers on whether the White House violated constitutional protections by restricting AP's access to presidential events after the agency refused to adopt Trump's preferred term “Gulf of America” instead of the long-recognized “Gulf of Mexico.”In April, a federal judge—appointed by Trump—granted a preliminary injunction in AP's favor, requiring the administration to restore the agency's full access. However, the appeals court later paused that ruling while it considers the government's challenge. The Trump administration argues that news organizations do not have a constitutional right to “special access” to areas like the Oval Office.AP's lawsuit, filed in February, claims the restrictions are retaliatory and violate the First and Fifth Amendments. The case has drawn attention for its potential implications beyond journalism, touching on the broader question of whether the government can punish speech that conflicts with its messaging. The administration has defended its actions as part of a general press policy rather than targeted retaliation.The conflict escalated after Trump signed an executive order to rename the Gulf, which AP chose not to adopt due to its editorial standards. The White House then limited the agency's access and removed AP and Reuters from the regular press pool. AP has framed the case as critical to preventing government coercion of the press.US appeals court to rule if Trump can ban AP from Oval Office | ReutersNewly unsealed court filings allege that Meta Platforms shut down internal research after discovering evidence that Facebook use caused measurable harm to users' mental health. In a 2020 internal study, dubbed “Project Mercury,” Meta partnered with Nielsen to examine the effects of Facebook deactivation. Users who left the platform for a week reported lower levels of depression, anxiety, loneliness, and social comparison—results the company allegedly found troubling enough to halt further study and dismiss as tainted by public bias.Despite internal acknowledgment that the findings were valid, Meta did not publish the results and later told Congress it could not quantify harm from its products. The lawsuit—filed by U.S. school districts against Meta, TikTok, Snapchat, and Google—claims the platforms concealed known risks from users, parents, and educators. Plaintiffs also allege that Meta's safety features were deliberately underdeveloped, and that high thresholds for user removal allowed exploitative behavior to persist unchecked.Among the more serious accusations: Meta allegedly deprioritized child safety concerns in favor of platform growth, suppressed internal safety testing, and allowed human trafficking accounts to remain active until repeated violations were flagged—up to 17 times. Plaintiffs say Meta and other companies also tried to buy favorable public positioning by sponsoring child advocacy groups, such as TikTok's internal brag about its influence over the National PTA.Meta has denied the allegations, calling them misleading and based on selective quotes. The company says it has robust teen safety measures and that accounts involved in trafficking are now removed upon first report. A hearing on the matter is scheduled for January in federal court.Meta buried ‘causal' evidence of social media harm, US court filings allege | ReutersThe Trump administration is moving forward with plans to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education and relocate its functions across six other federal agencies, including Labor and Health and Human Services. According to multiple sources familiar with the effort, senior officials and department directors have been required to sign non-disclosure agreements (NDAs), an uncommon move for a civilian agency without a national security mandate. These agreements are reportedly being used to limit information sharing as the reorganization proceeds behind closed doors.Education Secretary Linda McMahon announced the restructuring this week, framing it as a way to “end federal micromanagement” while still supporting education through other agencies. Some staff have already transitioned to new posts, and more are expected to relocate by January. However, specifics on the timeline and scope of the overhaul remain vague, even to congressional oversight committees and education advocates.Critics argue the administration is sidelining Congress and the public in what they call an opaque and potentially destabilizing shift. Senator Patty Murray called the effort “sabotage,” citing the lack of transparency and collaboration. Meanwhile, McMahon has reportedly met with lawmakers and urged Congress to formalize the changes through legislation, though no formal bill has yet been introduced.US Education Department requiring non-disclosure agreements in Trump reorganization, sources say | ReutersIn a deep-dive investigation, FOIAball uncovered how UCLA Athletics appears to have routed large sums of money intended for football player NIL (Name, Image, and Likeness) deals through a tax-exempt charity—Shelter 37, run by the co-founder of the school's official NIL collective, Bruins for Life. This maneuver may have allowed donors to receive tax deductions for contributions that ultimately compensated athletes, despite recent IRS rulings stating such collectives do not qualify for charitable status.Emails obtained through public records show that UCLA development staff actively coached donors to send checks to Shelter 37 while explicitly designating those funds for Bruins for Life, the school's NIL program. These emails often discussed timing, amounts, and communication with the charity's leadership to ensure the money was redirected as intended. In several cases, UCLA staff reassured donors that contributions through donor-advised funds (DAFs)—normally restricted from supporting private benefit—could be routed to Shelter 37 and still benefit athletes.After the IRS began denying charitable status to NIL collectives in 2023 due to private benefit concerns, most programs shifted to non-deductible donations. But UCLA's workaround relied on Shelter 37's 501(c)(3) status to continue offering donors deductions, despite Shelter 37's own filings showing the vast majority of its funds in 2024—$3.6 million of $4.8 million—were raised for UCLA football NIL purposes. By contrast, it spent only $200 on scholarships for at-risk youth, its purported mission.Legal experts, including yours truly, told FOIAball that this could constitute fraudulent behavior, noting that charities must exercise control over their funds and serve the public interest—not act as pass-throughs for private benefit. UCLA officials, when asked for comment, did not address the specifics. Meanwhile, Shelter 37's president denied improper coordination but acknowledged the charity paid players to appear at events, an arrangement experts say still violates nonprofit law if the real intent is athlete compensation.How UCLA used a friendly charity to get tax-free NIL money This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

What happens when your personal data is misused or stolen — can you really take a company to court?

What does the next era of plaintiff law look like and how can trial lawyers position themselves to thrive in it?In this episode of Best Practices with Kenny Berger, Kenny sits down with attorney, entrepreneur, and community-builder Bob Simon to talk about the forces reshaping plaintiff practice today. From AI intake and automated case review to national referral networks, mentorship communities, and the rise of modern legal brands, Bob shares a clear and compelling vision of where the profession is headed.They discuss:How AI and automation are leveling the playing field for small and midsize firmsWhy community, collaboration, and mentorship will define the next generation of great lawyersBuilding a practice that blends efficiency with human connectionCreating systems that free lawyers to focus on high-impact workThe importance of work-life balance and “financial stress-free time” with familyThis episode offers practical insights on how to evolve your practice as the legal landscape transforms.Hosted by South Carolina Injury Lawyer Kenny Berger | Best Practices with Kenny Berger

Jeffrey Epstein's longtime attorney and financial fixer, Darren Indyke, has been repeatedly linked to the intricate structuring of Epstein's vast financial network — a labyrinth of trusts, shell companies, and opaque entities that concealed the flow of money used to fund his operations and, allegedly, pay off victims and accomplices. “Structuring,” in financial terms, refers to deliberately breaking up large transactions to avoid federal reporting requirements under the Bank Secrecy Act. Investigators have long suspected that Epstein and Indyke employed similar tactics to mask the source and movement of Epstein's wealth, from offshore accounts to foundations like Gratitude America Ltd., which funneled millions in donations and “grants” to scientific and philanthropic fronts that enhanced Epstein's public image. Indyke's deep involvement in setting up and managing these entities made him not just Epstein's lawyer but a key architect of the financial smoke screen that protected Epstein's empire for decades.After Epstein's death, Indyke's role came under heavier scrutiny, as he continued to act as co-executor of the estate — even while being named in multiple civil suits accusing him of enabling or facilitating Epstein's criminal conduct. Plaintiffs argued that the same structuring tactics used to obscure Epstein's finances were now being repurposed to shield assets from victims' compensation claims. Indyke has denied wrongdoing, asserting he merely executed Epstein's instructions as a lawyer and fiduciary. However, investigators have questioned how much he knew — and how complicit he was — in maintaining the secrecy that allowed Epstein's trafficking network to operate unchecked for years. Whether by legal design or deliberate obfuscation, the structuring overseen by Indyke remains one of the most revealing examples of how Epstein's financial crimes were hidden in plain sight, wrapped in the legitimacy of corporate paperwork and professional discretion.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Jeffrey Epstein's longtime attorney and financial fixer, Darren Indyke, has been repeatedly linked to the intricate structuring of Epstein's vast financial network — a labyrinth of trusts, shell companies, and opaque entities that concealed the flow of money used to fund his operations and, allegedly, pay off victims and accomplices. “Structuring,” in financial terms, refers to deliberately breaking up large transactions to avoid federal reporting requirements under the Bank Secrecy Act. Investigators have long suspected that Epstein and Indyke employed similar tactics to mask the source and movement of Epstein's wealth, from offshore accounts to foundations like Gratitude America Ltd., which funneled millions in donations and “grants” to scientific and philanthropic fronts that enhanced Epstein's public image. Indyke's deep involvement in setting up and managing these entities made him not just Epstein's lawyer but a key architect of the financial smoke screen that protected Epstein's empire for decades.After Epstein's death, Indyke's role came under heavier scrutiny, as he continued to act as co-executor of the estate — even while being named in multiple civil suits accusing him of enabling or facilitating Epstein's criminal conduct. Plaintiffs argued that the same structuring tactics used to obscure Epstein's finances were now being repurposed to shield assets from victims' compensation claims. Indyke has denied wrongdoing, asserting he merely executed Epstein's instructions as a lawyer and fiduciary. However, investigators have questioned how much he knew — and how complicit he was — in maintaining the secrecy that allowed Epstein's trafficking network to operate unchecked for years. Whether by legal design or deliberate obfuscation, the structuring overseen by Indyke remains one of the most revealing examples of how Epstein's financial crimes were hidden in plain sight, wrapped in the legitimacy of corporate paperwork and professional discretion.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

What happens when your personal data is misused or stolen — can you really take a company to court?

Jeffrey Epstein's longtime attorney and financial fixer, Darren Indyke, has been repeatedly linked to the intricate structuring of Epstein's vast financial network — a labyrinth of trusts, shell companies, and opaque entities that concealed the flow of money used to fund his operations and, allegedly, pay off victims and accomplices. “Structuring,” in financial terms, refers to deliberately breaking up large transactions to avoid federal reporting requirements under the Bank Secrecy Act. Investigators have long suspected that Epstein and Indyke employed similar tactics to mask the source and movement of Epstein's wealth, from offshore accounts to foundations like Gratitude America Ltd., which funneled millions in donations and “grants” to scientific and philanthropic fronts that enhanced Epstein's public image. Indyke's deep involvement in setting up and managing these entities made him not just Epstein's lawyer but a key architect of the financial smoke screen that protected Epstein's empire for decades.After Epstein's death, Indyke's role came under heavier scrutiny, as he continued to act as co-executor of the estate — even while being named in multiple civil suits accusing him of enabling or facilitating Epstein's criminal conduct. Plaintiffs argued that the same structuring tactics used to obscure Epstein's finances were now being repurposed to shield assets from victims' compensation claims. Indyke has denied wrongdoing, asserting he merely executed Epstein's instructions as a lawyer and fiduciary. However, investigators have questioned how much he knew — and how complicit he was — in maintaining the secrecy that allowed Epstein's trafficking network to operate unchecked for years. Whether by legal design or deliberate obfuscation, the structuring overseen by Indyke remains one of the most revealing examples of how Epstein's financial crimes were hidden in plain sight, wrapped in the legitimacy of corporate paperwork and professional discretion.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Federal employee unions are suing the Trump administration for including a new essay question on most job applications. One of the questions asks candidates how they plan to advance the Trump administration's priorities. Plaintiffs in the lawsuit say that amounts to a loyalty test for the nonpartisan civil service Federal News Network's Jory Heckman is here with more details. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Cortney Nicolato, President and CEO, United Way of Rhode Island - who are a plaintiff in the legal challenge to the Trump administration's SNAP suspension - joins the show to offer perspective on the travel and impact of the case, See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Healthcare Warriors: Why and How to Become One by Dr Ira Williams https://www.amazon.com/Healthcare-Warriors-Why-How-Become/dp/B0BJ5TQGLT Drirawilliams.com Has our Healthcare System failed you or a loved one?Do you want to take part in making that System far better?Wanted! Healthcare Warriors where they live! Many people complain about our current Healthcare System. Dr. Williams is looking for people who desire to become Healthcare Gamechangers. States are where the current Healthcare Delivery System must be made far better, and Dr. Williams offers a logical and doable process to begin to create a 21st century Healthcare Delivery System within each state, and Healthcare Warriors can initiate that process where they live. Highlights of Dr. Williams' career: - 23 y.o. Air Force Squadron Commander & Summary Court Martial Office. - President of his state's surgical society for 2 years. - Hospital medical staff¬ Executive Committee member 2-2year terms. - Oldest active Plaintiff's surgical malpractice expert witness in the nation.About the author Dr. Ira Williams is a board certified oral surgeon and in writing his four books on health care he has recognized why the current system is broken and how to begin to create a far better system.

This Day in Legal History: Nevada Admitted as 36th StateOn October 31, 1864, Nevada was officially admitted as the 36th state of the United States, a move driven as much by wartime politics as by the territory's readiness for statehood. With President Abraham Lincoln seeking re-election and needing support for the proposed 13th Amendment to abolish slavery, the Republican-controlled Congress saw strategic value in adding another loyal Union state. Although Nevada's population was below the threshold typically required for statehood, its vast mineral wealth and political alignment with the Union helped accelerate the process. To meet the tight timeline ahead of the 1864 election, Nevada's leaders moved quickly to draft a state constitution.Facing logistical challenges in sending the document from Carson City to Washington, D.C., Nevada officials made the unprecedented decision to transmit the entire text—over 16,000 words—via telegraph. The transmission took over 12 hours and cost more than $4,000, making it the longest and most expensive telegram ever sent at the time. The decision proved effective: the telegram reached the capital in time, and Congress formally approved Nevada's admission on the same day.The speed and cost of Nevada's telegraphic constitution became a symbol of the urgency and improvisation of Civil War-era governance. The state's motto, “Battle Born,” reflects both its literal birth during the Civil War and the political battle over slavery and Union preservation. Nevada's admission also helped secure support for Lincoln's re-election and for the 13th Amendment, which passed Congress in January 1865.In a recently disclosed legal filing, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) sought taxpayer information on over 1.28 million individuals from the IRS, though only about 47,000 records matched. The request, part of a broader effort to access data on individuals under final removal orders, was submitted under a carve-out in Section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code, which permits limited disclosures during criminal investigations. The IRS initially rejected ICE's requests citing legal constraints, but a memorandum of understanding in April allowed for limited data sharing. A subsequent refined request from ICE in June targeted a smaller group of 1.27 million, but again, only a small percentage matched IRS records, and many failed to meet legal standards for processing.The case arose from a lawsuit filed by taxpayer advocacy groups and unions, which argue that these disclosures violate the Tax Reform Act, the Privacy Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act. Plaintiffs are seeking a preliminary injunction to halt further sharing. Internal emails reveal IRS officials were concerned about the unprecedented scale and legality of the request, and officials emphasized the need to keep the data sharing confidential. The IRS typically handles about 30,000 such data requests a year, each requiring detailed justification and high-level agency approval. Critics warn that this massive data handover poses urgent threats to taxpayer privacy and due process rights.ICE Sought Records on 1.3 Million Taxpayers, Filing Shows (1)U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols praised two federal prosecutors, Samuel White and Carlos Valdivia, for their handling of a case against Taylor Taranto, despite both being suspended by the Justice Department the day before. The suspension followed their reference to January 6 rioters as “a mob of rioters” and mention of Donald Trump allegedly sharing Barack Obama's address in a sentencing memo. Judge Nichols commended their work as professional and exemplary, stating they upheld the highest prosecutorial standards.Taranto was sentenced to 21 months in prison for firearm and hoax-related charges after being arrested near Obama's D.C. residence in 2023. However, he will not serve additional time due to pretrial detention. Though originally charged for participating in the Capitol riot, those charges were dropped under President Trump's mass clemency order for January 6 defendants issued at the start of his second term. Taranto's defense claimed his statements about explosives were meant as “dark humor” and that he hadn't committed any violence.After White and Valdivia's suspension, a revised sentencing memo—stripped of January 6 and Trump references—was filed by two replacement prosecutors, including a senior DOJ official. The incident reflects broader tensions under the Trump administration, which has repeatedly moved to minimize references to Capitol riot violence and penalize prosecutors involved in politically sensitive cases.US judge praises prosecutors who were suspended after referring to January 6 ‘mob' | ReutersA federal judge allowed the Trump administration to move forward with firing nearly all remaining employees of the Department of Justice's Community Relations Service (CRS), an agency established in the 1960s to mediate racial and ethnic conflicts. U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani, while denying a temporary restraining order sought by civil rights groups, noted that the plaintiffs failed to show immediate, irreparable harm. However, she also stated that the groups are likely to succeed in proving that the executive branch cannot lawfully dissolve a congressionally created agency.The lawsuit, brought by 11 organizations including the NAACP and the Ethical Society of Police, challenges the Justice Department's recent “reduction in force” that would leave just one CRS employee. The move follows a pattern under the Trump administration, which has rejected all new requests for CRS services and proposed no funding for the agency in its budget. Plaintiffs argue that a termination notice stating the layoffs aim to “effectuate the dissolution” of CRS confirms unlawful intent.Although Talwani's ruling allows the firings to proceed, she emphasized that the final outcome may favor the plaintiffs as the case continues. The layoffs coincide with a government shutdown that began October 1, meaning the employees would have been furloughed regardless. The DOJ claims it is merely reorganizing, not eliminating, the agency, though it concedes that only Congress has the authority to formally abolish it.Judge allows Trump administration to fire most of DOJ race-relations agency's employees | ReutersHagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, a prominent plaintiffs' law firm, is under scrutiny in two high-profile class actions, facing judicial criticism and potential sanctions. In Seattle, a federal judge sanctioned the firm for over $223,000 after finding it misled the court and opposing counsel about its client's withdrawal from an antitrust case against Apple and Amazon. The judge said Hagens Berman failed to disclose that their client, who later disappeared from proceedings, had expressed his intent to exit the case months earlier. The firm argues it acted ethically under client confidentiality rules and has asked the judge to revise her dismissal ruling.In a separate matter in Philadelphia, the firm faces possible new sanctions in long-running litigation over thalidomide-related birth defect claims. A special master found misconduct, including altering an expert report and advancing claims lacking legal merit. While Hagens Berman disputes the findings, calling them outside the master's authority and biased, U.S. District Judge Paul Diamond upheld the report. The firm has now requested that Diamond recuse himself, citing an appearance of bias due to his close coordination with the special master.In both cases, Hagens Berman maintains its actions were in good faith and within legal and ethical bounds, while critics and courts point to patterns of misrepresentation and overreach.Law firm Hagens Berman battles sanctions in Apple, thalidomide cases | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Camille Saint-Saëns.Camille Saint-Saëns was a French composer, organist, conductor, and pianist whose long career spanned the Romantic era and touched the early 20th century. Born in Paris in 1835, he was a child prodigy who began composing at the age of three and gave his first public performance at ten. Saint-Saëns was celebrated for his extraordinary versatility, writing symphonies, concertos, operas, chamber music, and choral works. Though deeply rooted in classical forms, he was an early supporter of contemporary composers like Liszt and Wagner, even as he remained skeptical of more radical modernism. His music often combined technical brilliance with elegance, and his clear, structured style made him a bridge between tradition and innovation. He was also a prolific writer and amateur astronomer, and his intellectual breadth sometimes earned him criticism from those who found his music too refined or academic. Still, Saint-Saëns maintained influence across Europe, and his works remain staples of the concert repertoire.This week's closing theme is Saint-Saëns' Danse Macabre. Originally a song for voice and piano based on a poem by Henri Cazalis, Saint-Saëns later reworked Danse Macabre into a tone poem for orchestra. It depicts Death summoning the dead from their graves at midnight on Halloween for a wild, skeletal waltz. A solo violin—tuned unconventionally to evoke a harsh, eerie sound—plays Death's dance theme, while xylophone rattles mimic clacking bones. The piece was controversial at its premiere in 1875 but quickly became a concert favorite, especially around Halloween. With its vivid orchestration and playful macabre imagery, Danse Macabre is one of classical music's most iconic musical depictions of the supernatural, perfectly capturing the spirit of the season.Without further ado, Saint-Saëns Danse Macabre—enjoy! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Attorneys John “Jack” Delany, Gary Samms and John Hare, from Qualified Member law firm Marshall Dennehey discuss the best approaches for attorneys to prevent nuclear verdicts in the courtroom. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Attorneys John “Jack” Delany, Gary Samms and John Hare, from Qualified Member law firm Marshall Dennehey discuss the best approaches for attorneys to prevent nuclear verdicts in the courtroom.

*Content Warning: Institutional child abuse, body-image abuse, disordered eating, attack therapy, cultic abuse, grooming, medical trauma, death, alcohol use disorder, psychological and physical trauma, child labor, distressing themes.  *Free + Confidential Resources + Safety Tips:  somethingwaswrong.com/resources    Snag your ticket for the live Home for the Holidays event here: https://events.humanitix.com/swwxtgi  Check out our brand new SWW Sticker Shop!: https://brokencyclemedia.com/sticker-shop  *SWW S23 Theme Song & Artwork:  The S24 cover art is by the Amazing Sara Stewart Follow Something Was Wrong: Website: somethingwaswrong.com  IG: instagram.com/somethingwaswrongpodcast TikTok: tiktok.com/@somethingwaswrongpodcast  Follow Tiffany Reese: Website: tiffanyreese.me  IG: instagram.com/lookieboo *Sources  “DeSisto School.” Unsilenced, www.unsilenced.org/program-archive/us-programs/massachusetts/desisto-school/ “Exhibits in Desisto Investigation.” Scribd, Scribd, www.scribd.com/document/324581177/Exhibits-in-DeSisto-Investigation “Off-Broadway's Inappropriate Extends Again to Jan. 30.” Playbill, Playbill, 2 Dec. 2021, playbill.com/article/off-broadways-inappropriate-extends-again-to-jan-30-com-86238 Radio, WAMC Northeast Public. “Controversial School for Troubled Teens to Close.” WAMC, 16 Feb. 2012, www.wamc.org/new-york-news/2004-04-13/controversial-school-for-troubled-teens-to-close Secretary of Labor, Plaintiff, Appellee, V. A. Michael Desisto, Defendant, Appellee,the Desisto Schools, Inc., Defendant, Appellant.Elizabeth Dole, Secretary of Labor, Plaintiff, Appellant, V. A. Michael Desisto, et al., Defendants, Appellees, 929 f.2d 789 (1st Cir. 1991) :: Justia, law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/929/789/124165/

After the Washington Supreme Court ruled that misleading subject lines can violate the state's Commercial Electronic Mail Act (CEMA), Skechers now faces a similar class action. The lawsuit claims the company created a false sense of urgency by announcing that sales would end — only to later extend them. This episode explores how the case underscores growing risks around email marketing and why brands should review subject line practices to avoid costly CEMA violations. Hosted by Simone Roach. Based on a blog post by Gonzalo Mon.

Plaintiffs support a 10-district system used twice in Virginia Beach following the original suit. The city, awaiting the referendum result, has asked to dismiss the case.

Plaintiffs support a 10-district system used twice in Virginia Beach following the original suit. The city, awaiting the referendum result, has asked to dismiss the case.

This Day in Legal History: Saturday Night MassacreOn October 20, 1973, a pivotal event in American legal and political history unfolded: the “Saturday Night Massacre.” Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox was fired by Solicitor General Robert Bork at the direct order of President Richard Nixon. Nixon's decision came after both Attorney General Elliot Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus refused to carry out the order and instead chose to resign. Cox had insisted on obtaining White House tapes related to the Watergate break-in, and Nixon, citing executive privilege, ordered him removed.The dismissals plunged the Justice Department into chaos and sparked widespread public outrage. Nixon's actions were viewed by many as a blatant abuse of power and a threat to the independence of the justice system. Congress was inundated with demands for Nixon's impeachment, and confidence in the executive branch eroded further. Though Bork ultimately carried out the dismissal, he later stated he believed it was his duty to preserve the functioning of the Justice Department.The fallout from the Saturday Night Massacre significantly intensified the Watergate investigation. Within months, new Special Prosecutor Leon Jaworski was appointed, and he continued the push for the tapes. Eventually, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously in United States v. Nixon (1974) that Nixon had to turn them over. The tapes revealed evidence of a cover-up, which led directly to Nixon's resignation in August 1974.President Trump commuted the federal prison sentence of former U.S. Representative George Santos, ordering his immediate release. Santos, who had been sentenced in April to over seven years for fraud and identity theft, was serving time for falsifying donor information and inflating fundraising figures to gain support from the Republican Party during his 2022 campaign. His short and controversial congressional tenure ended in expulsion following numerous scandals, including false claims about his education, employment history, and family background.Trump announced the commutation on Truth Social, arguing that Santos had been “horribly mistreated” and drawing comparisons to other “rogues” in the country who do not face such lengthy prison terms. Earlier in the week, Santos had publicly pleaded for clemency, praising Trump and expressing remorse for his actions. The commutation fits into a broader pattern of Trump's second-term use of clemency powers, which included mass pardons of January 6 defendants and relief for political figures from both parties. The Constitution grants the president wide authority to issue pardons or commute sentences for federal offenses.Trump commutes prison sentence of former lawmaker George Santos, orders him released | ReutersA proposed class action lawsuit was filed in federal court in Connecticut, accusing eight major U.S. banks—including JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Citibank, and U.S. Bank—of conspiring to fix the U.S. prime interest rate for over three decades. The plaintiffs, representing potentially hundreds of thousands of borrowers, claim the banks coordinated to align their prime lending rates with the Wall Street Journal Prime Rate, which is typically set at three percentage points above the federal funds rate. This rate influences trillions of dollars in consumer and small-business loans, such as credit cards and home equity lines.The suit alleges that this coordination inflated borrowing costs for consumers and small businesses, who were led to believe the rates were set independently. It also asserts that up until 1992, the Wall Street Journal published a range of prime rates that reflected competitive differences among banks, but since then has moved to publishing a single rate derived from input by a select group of large banks. Although the Wall Street Journal and Dow Jones are not named as defendants, the lawsuit challenges the transparency and independence of the current rate-setting process.Plaintiffs argue that decades of nearly identical prime rate pricing among the banks defies the notion of independent rate-setting. The banks named in the case have not yet made court appearances and mostly declined to comment. The suit, Normandin et al v. JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. et al, aims to hold the institutions accountable for what plaintiffs call a longstanding, anti-competitive scheme.Borrowers sue major US banks over alleged prime rate-fixing scheme | ReutersChief Judge Colm F. Connolly of the U.S. District Court for Delaware issued a ruling that could significantly alter how early-stage patent litigation is handled, particularly regarding willful infringement claims. Reversing his earlier stance, Connolly held that requests for enhanced damages due to willful patent infringement are not standalone claims subject to early dismissal if the underlying infringement claims proceed. The decision came in a case involving clot-removal device patents, Inari Medical Inc. v. Inquis Medical Inc.This shift may complicate early settlements by increasing uncertainty and widening the valuation gap between plaintiffs and defendants. Because Delaware is a leading venue for patent disputes, Connolly's ruling may influence how courts across the country handle similar motions, although it's uncertain whether other judges will adopt the same reasoning. Legal scholars and practitioners note the opinion could lead to more aggressive pre-suit tactics from patent holders, such as sending demand letters alleging willfulness, which could provoke accused companies to initiate preemptive litigation in favorable jurisdictions.Connolly's approach represents a sharp departure from his prior treatment of willfulness claims and, according to experts, effectively lets plaintiffs include such allegations in their complaints without risk of early dismissal. However, the ruling also reaffirmed that plaintiffs still need to establish pre-suit knowledge of the patents to succeed on claims of post-suit willfulness or indirect infringement.Connolly's Willfulness Ruling Risks Scuttling Patent Settlements This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

The Combs Defendants assert that Plaintiff's complaint fails on multiple legal grounds and should be dismissed. First, they argue that no plausible claim is alleged under Rule 12(b)(6): the Complaint lacks sufficient factual allegations to meet the heightened pleading standard for fraud, defamation, RICO claims, or negligence. They contend Plaintiff offers nothing more than conclusory statements and unsupported legal labels, without demonstrating the required “who, what, when, where, and how” of each alleged misrepresentation or wrongful act. As a result, the Complaint falls short of establishing any viable cause of action warranting further discovery or litigation.Second, the Combs Defendants underscore that statutory protections—such as the federal safe-harbor for forward-looking statements, New York's absolute privilege for certain communications, and state-law immunity standards—shield them even if some wrongdoing is assumed. Moreover, any purported defamatory or false statements are not actionable as they are either opinion or based on disclosed facts, and the RICO claims are improperly pled in that they lack a pattern of racketeering activity. In light of these deficiencies and immunity defenses, the Court is asked to dismiss the Complaint against the Combs Defendants, with prejudice and without leave to amend.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.630375.72.0.pdf

Students from Toronto Metropolitan University have launched a $10 million lawsuit being launched against the school for falsely, and very publicly, labelling them antisemitic.Human rights lawyer Dimitri Lascaris, one of the lawyers working pro-bono on this case, joins Blueprints Hosts Jessa McLean and Santiago Helou Quintero to dish on the details and talk about its wider implications.Dimitri also shares updates from other related legal cases, including a historic challenge against the Canadian government's role in the genocide.Run time: 36 minutesCall to Action: You can donate to the Toronto Community Justice Fund or other local support initiatives that help activists navigate the legal system.Related Episodes: Right to Resist (Oct. 2024) Dimitri Lascaris on Lebanon, the resistance and bringing down an apartheid state.Rabble Rants: ICJ Rules Against Israel (Jan. 2024), also with Dimitri LascarisWeaponizing Canadian Law for Israel (Jul. 2024) Martin Lukacs from The Breach discusses his investigations into Toronto Police's Project Resolute and the secretive committee tasked with cracking down on Palestinian solidarity activism.More Resources: Citing Genocide Convention, Seven Lawyers Launch Historic Lawsuit Against Canada - acTVismTMU External ReportToronto Today: TMU Law Students Launch $10 million defamation lawsuit Plaintiffs' Statement via Dimitri Lascaris' on Twitter Be sure to subscribe to our SUBSTACK

Plaintiffs in a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration's latest mass layoffs will make their case to a federal judge tomorrow. The administration sent RIF notices to more than 4,000 federal employees last week. Government employee unions say reduction-in-force procedures are normally prohibited during a shutdown and that the Trump administration gave unlawful orders to exempt RIF activities. The Supreme Court this summer allowed the Trump administration to proceed with earlier mass layoffs across the federal workforce. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Nineteenth Week after PentecostText: Luke 18:1-8Access the Order of Worship hereAccess the Music Booklet here

Plaintiffs say they told the flight crew about the husband's stroke before takeoff but the airline instead chose to takeoff and fly to Spain before the husband could get medical attention; Plaintiffs say the delay caused the husband's injuries to be much greater than they would have been otherwise. https://www.lehtoslaw.com

This Day in Legal History: Anita HillOn October 6, 1991, Anita Hill, a law professor at the University of Oklahoma, accused Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment, dramatically shifting the course of his confirmation process. Hill, who had previously worked under Thomas at the Department of Education and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, alleged that Thomas made repeated sexually inappropriate comments during their professional relationship. Her allegations were leaked to the press after the Senate Judiciary Committee had already voted to send Thomas's nomination to the full Senate. In response, the Committee reopened the hearings, and Hill testified publicly on October 11, describing in detail the behavior she claimed to have experienced. Her testimony was televised nationally, drawing intense media coverage and sparking widespread public debate about sexual harassment, gender dynamics, and power in the workplace.The hearings were often contentious, with Hill subjected to sharp questioning from senators, many of whom expressed skepticism about her motives. Thomas categorically denied the allegations, famously calling the proceedings a “high-tech lynching” during his own testimony. Despite the controversy, the Senate narrowly confirmed Thomas to the Supreme Court by a 52-48 vote on October 15, one of the closest margins in modern confirmation history. Hill's testimony, however, had a lasting impact beyond the nomination itself.The episode galvanized public awareness of workplace sexual harassment and is often credited with sparking a surge in women seeking elected office in 1992, dubbed the “Year of the Woman.” It also led to changes in how such allegations were addressed in professional and legal contexts. The legacy of the hearings continues to influence discussions of gender and accountability in government and law.The U.S. Supreme Court begins its new term today with a docket that includes significant cases related to President Donald Trump's exercise of executive power. Key cases center on Trump's efforts to impose tariffs and remove certain federal officials—moves that could test the constitutional boundaries between presidential authority and congressional control. The Court has already sided with Trump in several emergency rulings this year, including a June decision that curtailed judges' ability to block presidential policies nationwide.In addition to executive power disputes, the justices will take up cases touching on contentious social issues, including the legality of a Colorado law banning “conversion therapy” for minors, rights of transgender student athletes, gun control, and race-related policies. The Court's conservative 6-3 majority, including three Trump appointees, is expected to play a crucial role in shaping these outcomes.Other notable cases this term involve a Texas murder conviction potentially violating the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel, and a malpractice suit that questions whether federal courts must apply state laws requiring expert affidavits in medical negligence claims. The justices will also consider a campaign finance case involving Vice President JD Vance and a law allowing lawsuits over property seized by the Cuban government.US Supreme Court opens new term, with major Trump cases in store | ReutersA federal judge in Oregon, Karin Immergut, has temporarily blocked President Donald Trump's administration from deploying any National Guard troops—whether from Oregon or other states—to Portland. The order, issued on Sunday, follows an earlier ruling by the same judge that stopped Trump from sending 200 Oregon National Guard troops. In response, the administration tried to redirect troops from California and Texas, arguing that their prior federalization allowed for deployment anywhere. Judge Immergut rejected that argument, stating there was no justification for military presence given the current protest activity in Portland.Oregon officials accused the administration of legal “gamesmanship,” calling the attempt to bypass the initial order an affront to the court's intent. The ruling will remain in place until at least October 19 while broader legal challenges play out. The Pentagon had planned to send troops to support federal agencies like ICE and protect federal property. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth had also called up Texas troops for deployment in multiple cities, including Chicago and Portland.National Guard units are generally controlled by state governors unless federalized, a point central to Oregon's legal argument that Trump was overreaching by seizing control of state resources. Governor Gavin Newsom of California called the deployment an abuse of power, echoing broader concerns about the erosion of state sovereignty. Judge Immergut emphasized that presidential military authority, while broad, is not unlimited and cannot override facts on the ground or constitutional limits.US judge blocks Trump from sending any National Guard troops to Portland for now | ReutersA coalition of unions, employers, and religious groups has filed a federal lawsuit in San Francisco challenging a recent proclamation by President Donald Trump that imposes a $100,000 fee on new H-1B visa applications. The plaintiffs, including the United Auto Workers, the American Association of University Professors, and others, argue that Trump exceeded his legal authority by unilaterally altering a visa program created and regulated by Congress. They claim the president cannot impose such a fee without congressional approval, calling the move unconstitutional and a misuse of executive power.The H-1B visa program, widely used by tech companies and other industries to hire skilled foreign workers, currently costs employers between $2,000 and $5,000 per application. Trump's new order blocks new visa recipients from entering the U.S. unless their sponsoring employer pays the additional $100,000. The administration claims the measure is necessary to protect American jobs, prevent wage suppression, and safeguard national security.Critics of the new policy say it amounts to a “pay-to-play” system that grants exemptions only at the discretion of the Department of Homeland Security, opening the door to arbitrary enforcement. Plaintiffs also accuse government agencies of failing to follow proper administrative rulemaking procedures and warn that the excessive fee could stifle innovation and deter employers from hiring needed talent. The lawsuit underscores ongoing tensions over the scope of executive authority in shaping immigration policy and regulating labor markets.Trump's $100,000 fee for H-1B worker visas challenged in lawsuit | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

In this episode of The Litigation Psychology Podcast, Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. discusses confirmation bias and its destructive impact on litigation decision-making. He explains that confirmation bias — when attorneys or claims professionals interpret case facts in ways that support their preexisting beliefs — is one of the most dangerous cognitive traps in civil litigation. Plaintiff attorneys have recognized this risk in their own thinking and combat it through early and consistent jury research, conducting multiple focus groups throughout case development to uncover blind spots and test themes. Bill contrasts this with defense teams that often rely on gut feelings, hunches, or prior cases rather than data from the case at hand. Using a real fatality case example, he illustrates how an insurance company's refusal to fund jury research, despite facing a potential $25 million exposure, left the defense flying blind while the plaintiff likely had extensive data on juror perceptions, themes, and damages. This imbalance, he argues, fuels nuclear verdicts and demonstrates why relying on instinct instead of evidence is so costly. To counter confirmation bias, Bill advocates for early, cost-effective jury research, even pre-suit. He emphasizes that small, exploratory focus groups can act as pilot studies that guide case strategy, discovery, witness preparation, and expert planning long before trial. By investing early in data-driven insights, defense teams can make more informed settlement decisions, reduce uncertainty, and prevent disastrous verdicts.

Watch The X22 Report On Video No videos found (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:17532056201798502,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-9437-3289"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="https://cdn2.decide.dev/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");pt> Trump's GDP has hit 3.8%, the economy is on fire even without the Fed lowering the rates the way Trump wants. The [DS] is now trying to stop Trump's economy. They have now created another event which they are trying to use to stop Trump's economy, this will fail just like everything else. The [DS] is holding steady on the shutdown. The cover story is that they want money for illegal medical insurance, this is falling apart. They know they don't have the people so they are using this to distract from the push to WWIII and they are hoping that ICE, NG will cease their operations. Trump is using this to drain the swamp, expose the D's.  This is a no win situation for the [DS]. Trump knows the playbook and most likely he is using backchannels to speak to Putin. No war, no civil unrest, clean and swift.   Economy (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:18510697282300316,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-8599-9832"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="https://cdn2.decide.dev/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs"); https://twitter.com/profstonge/status/1973712063529631995 Treasury Sec. Bessent: Dem Shutdown to Cut Trump's GDP Growth The Democrats' government shutdown could reduce gross domestic product (GDP) growth that has emerged under President Donald Trump, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Thursday. "We were left with a mess [by the Biden administration]. It was the largest deficit when we weren't in a recession, weren't at war, and [now] we are fixing the deficit," Bessent said. "There could be a discussion, but this isn't the way to have a discussion — shutting down the government and lowering the GDP." "We could see a hit to the GDP, a hit to growth, and a hit to working America." Source: newsmax.com Political/Rights https://twitter.com/C_3C_3/status/1973706295841816644 https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1973469908358086957   https://twitter.com/C_3C_3/status/1973547026534277539 https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1973488279153680690   https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1973479707619590625 https://twitter.com/DHSgov/status/1973535704337486011  this Salvadoran man is not going to be able to remain in our country. He will never be allowed to prey on innocent Americans again. Never forget the Democrats flew to a foreign land on the US taxpayer's dime to break bread with this terrorist gang member and visit him in prison. While they continue to fight for criminal illegal aliens, we will continue to put the safety of the American people FIRST. https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/1973715576750305650     DOGE Federal Court Rules Bans on Carrying Firearms in Post Offices Are Unconstitutional, Democrats Hardest Hit In a win for the Second Amendment and law-abiding gun owners across America, a federal court has ruled that bans on carrying firearms in U.S. Post Offices are unconstitutional.  , Chief United States District Judge Reed O'Connor handed down an opinion on Firearms Policy Coalition Inc, et.al. v. Bondi. FPC was joined by the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) in challenging the federal law. The ruling also applies to carrying firearms on property surrounding post offices. Here's more, via Bearing Arms: O'Connor wrote that the law “is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment with respect to Plaintiffs' (and their members) possession and carrying of firearms i...

Too many professionals pursue prestige and big paydays, only to feel trapped in exhausting, unfulfilling careers. Nowhere is that more obvious than in Big Law, where young attorneys trade passion for paychecks—often at the cost of burnout, depression, and a life they never wanted.Bill Reid broke that mold. As a nationally recognized trial lawyer and co-founder of Reid Collins, he's spent decades taking on corporate giants—banks, accounting firms, and institutions most people thought were untouchable. In his new book, Fighting Bullies: The Case for a Career in Plaintiffs' Law, he reveals the truth behind Big Law's broken model and shows why pursuing passion and purpose leads not only to success, but to freedom.What makes Bill's story resonate far beyond the legal world is the life he's designed along the way—one of wealth, health, impact, and experiences that his peers envy. His journey is proof that you don't have to sacrifice your freedom to build real prosperity.In this episode, you'll learn: 1.) Why Big Law traps so many young attorneys—and how to avoid falling into the same paycheck-driven path.2.) How AI is disrupting industries like law—automating tasks like document review and contracts, and forcing efficiency over billable hours.3.) Bill's blueprint for an “epic life”—balancing high-stakes work, entrepreneurship, health, and unforgettable experiences with friends and family.Show Notes: LifestyleInvestor.com/258Tax Strategy MasterclassIf you're interested in learning more about Tax Strategy and how YOU can apply 28 of the best, most effective strategies right away, check out our BRAND NEW Tax Strategy Masterclass: www.lifestyleinvestor.com/taxStrategy Session For a limited time, my team is hosting free, personalized consultation calls to learn more about your goals and determine which of our courses or masterminds will get you to the next level. To book your free session, visit LifestyleInvestor.com/consultationThe Lifestyle Investor InsiderJoin The Lifestyle Investor Insider, our brand new AI - curated newsletter - FREE for all podcast listeners for a limited time: www.lifestyleinvestor.com/insiderRate & ReviewIf you enjoyed today's episode of The Lifestyle Investor, hit the subscribe button on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen, so future episodes are automatically downloaded directly to your device. You can also help by providing an honest rating & review.Connect with Justin DonaldFacebookYouTubeInstagramLinkedInTwitterSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

After years of having their belongings destroyed by city workers while homeless in San Francisco, Apple Cronk and her partner fought back through the courts.Join Apple and her partner Josh with our Host, Street Sheet editor TJ Johnston as they explore how this settlement protects ALL unhoused San Franciscans from routine property destruction, as well as their journey fighting back against the city's attack on unhoused people's human rights, their dignity and their vital and precious belongings. Check out Apple's op-ed in the Chronicle telling her story about why she joined the lawsuit. Support the show

Virginia Robinson and her family moved to Camp Lejeune in 1959, a Marine Corps base in North Carolina. She raised her children there and dedicated 25 years of her life working on base, never knowing that the very place where she lived, worked, and built her family was slowly poisoning them. For decades, toxic chemicals such as PCE and TCE contaminated the water and air at Camp Lejeune. No one warned the families. And for Virginia, the consequences have been devastating. Virginia has endured a battle for her life that has spanned more than 40 years. She survived leukemia, colon cancer while pregnant, and two separate diagnoses of breast cancer. In 2023, she faced liver cancer, kidney cancer, and yet another fight with breast cancer, all at the same time. The tragedy has stretched across her family. Her husband passed away in 2014, her daughter followed just five months later, and her father developed Parkinson's. Her daughter was born with a spinal tumor and died young from bladder cancer. All of them were exposed to Camp Lejeune's poisoned water. Virginia's suffering has been relentless, but so has her courage. Out of five siblings, she was the only one plagued by repeated cancers. Despite loss, grief, and years of illness, she refuses to give up. “Camp Lejeune never told us the truth,” she has said, but she still believes she can win this fight for herself, for her family, and for every victim who was left in the dark. For decades, families like hers have been ignored, their pain dismissed, and their sacrifices forgotten. Ashley Keller is a founding partner of Keller Postman LLC and one of the nation's leading trial and appellate lawyers. At Keller Postman, he helps guide strategic direction across the firm's wide-ranging docket, which includes product liability, antitrust, class action, and arbitration matters. He is a recognized leader in product-liability litigation and currently serves as court-appointed co-lead counsel in the Acetaminophen multidistrict litigation in the Southern District of New York. Ashley also represents numerous states in antitrust litigation against Google, challenging its dominance in online display advertising. He has played a key role in the development of Keller Postman's arbitration practice, which has secured millions of dollars in settlements for employees and consumers nationwide. Before founding Keller Postman, Ashley co-founded Gerchen Keller Capital, which became the largest private investment manager focused on legal and regulatory risk. He was previously a partner at Bartlit Beck, where he litigated high-stakes securities, patent, and mass tort cases. Ashley clerked for Justice Anthony M. Kennedy on the United States Supreme Court and Judge Richard Posner on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. He graduated magna cum laude from Harvard College, earned his M.B.A. from the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, and graduated first in his class from the University of Chicago Law School. Keller has been recognized as a Plaintiffs' Lawyers Trailblazer by the National Law Journal and has been listed among Lawdragon's 500 Leading Lawyers in America. He will be representing Virginia Robinson in her fight for justice in the Camp Lejeune case. With gratitude to our sponsors: RA Opticshttps://raoptics.com/bttpUse Code: BTTP-----Sky Horse Publishinghttps://www.skyhorsepublishing.com/-----Sign Uphttps://www.backtothepeople.net

In breaking news, A Republican Federal Judge, used Trump enabler Kari Lake's own words against her, to find her “dripping in indifference” and not only blocking her efforts to fire yet another 500 employees at Voice of America, but also observed that the Trump Administration's conduct before him would support civil contempt proceedings if only the Plaintiff would ask him for it. Michael Popok unpacks Judge Lamberth's order and his chastising of the Supreme Court while he is at it on his latest hot take. Done With Debt: Visit https://DoneWithDebt.com and talk to a strategist for FREE. Visit https://meidasplus.com for more! Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Coalition of the Sane: https://meidasnews.com/tag/coalition-of-the-sane Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Starting your own law firm can be one of the most rewarding (or one of the most challenging) decisions you'll ever make as a lawyer. In this episode of The Effective Lawyer Podcast, Jack Zinda breaks down the 7 essential questions every attorney should ask before taking the leap into running a practice.From understanding your “why” to building financial runway, generating business, handling risk, and surrounding yourself with the right support, this episode gives attorneys a framework for deciding if now is the right time to start a firm — and how to avoid common mistakes.What You'll Learn in This Episode:The most important question to ask before starting a law firm.How much financial runway you really need.Why client acquisition matters more than anything.The balance between being a lawyer and a CEO.How to prepare for uncertainty and risk.The systems you need beyond hustle.Why mentors, advisors, and family support are essential.Whether you're a young lawyer considering going solo or a seasoned attorney ready to take control of your career, this episode will help you make smarter, more confident decisions about your future.Learn more and explore other episodes at zdfirm.com/the-effective-lawyerHave a question for Jack? jack@zindalaw.com 

After winning a landmark climate case at the state level last year, a group of young Montanans are taking the fight to the federal government. They presented their arguments to a judge in Missoula last week.

In this episode, Florida attorney Chad Robinson discusses how AI is reshaping the insurance industry and why the human touch still matters. Gain insights into how claims are being handled with AI and automation, and discover tools professionals can use to stay ahead. Whether you're in legal, adjusting, or even contracting, Chad's expertise shows how to thrive in an AI-driven world. A must-listen for those wanting to elevate their claims game!   Highlights Impact of AI on Insurance Industry. Chad Robinson's Multifaceted Career. From Defense to Plaintiff's Side in Law. Importance of Human Element in Claims. Policyholders' Role in Documenting Damage. Adjusters' Approach to Inspections. Concerns with AI in Claims Decisions. Logic Loops in AI Handled Claims. Tools for Legal Professionals. Automation: Enhancing AI Efficiency. Leveling Up Through Professional Civility. Episode Resources Connect with Galen M. Hair https://insuranceclaimhq.com hair@hairshunnarah.com  https://levelupclaim.com/

Today - A lawsuit settlement that once quieted a major election dispute in Cochise County could now land the same plaintiff back in court — this time as the defendant.Support the show: https://www.myheraldreview.com/site/forms/subscription_services/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

*Content warning: substance use disorder, death, distressing and mature topics, drug use, institutional child abuse, emotional, physical and sexual violence of adolescents, childhood abuse, grooming.  *Free + Confidential Resources + Safety Tips:  somethingwaswrong.com/resources    *SWW S23 Theme Song & Artwork:  The S24 cover art is by the Amazing Sara Stewart Follow Something Was Wrong: Website: somethingwaswrong.com  IG: instagram.com/somethingwaswrongpodcast TikTok: tiktok.com/@somethingwaswrongpodcast  Follow Tiffany Reese: Website: tiffanyreese.me  IG: instagram.com/lookieboo *Sources  "Academy at Ivy Ridge Withdraws From World Wide Association of Specialty Programs & Schools." PRNewswire, January 1, 2006 https://web.archive.org/web/20120925185503 Bruening, Lexi, "District Attorney: dozens of Ivy Ridge abuse complaints pour in after documentary." 7 News, WWNY, March 11, 2024 https://www.wwnytv.com/2024/03/11/district-attorney-dozens-ivy-ridge Chomik, Alexandra, "TORTURE CHAMBER What was the Academy at Ivy Ridge?" The U.S. Sun, Mar 6 2024 https://www.the-sun.com/tv/10592100/what-was-academy-at-ivy-ridge  Editor, Letter to the. “Letter to the Editor: Bob Lichfield Offers Rebuttal to Allegations in Netflix Documentary.” St. George News, 27 Mar. 2024, www.stgeorgeutah.com/opinion/letter-to-the-editor-opinion/letter-to-the-editor-bob-lichfield-offers-rebuttal-to-allegations-in-netflix-documentary/article_c6e27554-f37b-555a-b4be-2c31f617c546.html. "Former Academy at Ivy Ridge students meet in Ogdensburg, rally outside city hall" 7 News, WWNY, April 27, 2024 https://www.wwnytv.com/2024/04/27/former-academy-ivy-ridge Hill, Michael, "Netflix docuseries on abuse allegations at New York boarding school prompts fresh investigation." InfoTelNews, April 03, 2024 https://infotel.ca/newsitem/us-boarding-academy-abuse-claims  Kenton, Luke, "'ABUSER UNMASKED' Amy Ritchie is named as the Ivy Ridge ‘predator' by four alleged victims who claim sexual abuse & sick grooming cycle." The Sun UK, March 23, 2024 https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/26880799/academy-ivy-ridge-abuser-amy-ritchie “Key to His Schools' Success? It's God, Founder Says.” Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles Times, 13 July 2003, www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2003-jul-13-na-toughbar13-story.html Kubler, Katherine, creator and director. The Program: Cons, Cults and Kidnapping. Netflix, 2024 https://www.imdb.com/title/tt31183637/  Mitchell, Max, "IDirector: Ivy Ridge to close until fall" Watertown Daily Times, MARCH 12, 2009 https://web.archive.org/web/20160530232325 “Riot at Cult School Finally Helped Close It after Abused Students Fought Back.” The US Sun, The US Sun, 28 Mar. 2024, www.the-sun.com/news/10623840/academy-ivy-ridge-riot-cult-school-closed-abuse-netflix/.  Rutherford, Diane, "NYS saw serious problems at Ivy Ridge in 2006, says letter obtained by 7 News." 7 News, WWNY, Mar. 12, 2024 https://www.wwnytv.com/2024/03/12/nys-saw-serious-problems-ivy-ridge Semple, Kirk, "Melee Keeps Spotlight on Hard Life at Academy." The New York Times, June 8, 2005 https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/08/nyregion NewsNation. “Teens' Alleged New York Boarding School Sexual Abuser Identified: Report | Banfield.” YouTube, 22 Apr. 2024 www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_oKRuKXdAQ.  “UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, BRUCE DUNGAN, et al., Plaintiffs v. THE ACADEMY AT IVY RIDGE, et al., Defendants.” April 22, 2008 https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-nynd Warner, Greg, "Riot at Ivy Ridge School for Troubled Teens." NCPR, May 19, 2005 https://www.northcountrypublicradio.org/news/story Winters, David, "Ivy Ridge, home sold for $2.8m." Watertown Daily Times, APRIL 25, 2009 https://web.archive.org/web/20140130123642 7 News. "Former Academy at Ivy Ridge Students Meet in Ogdensburg, Rally Outside City Hall." YouTube, 27 Apr. 2024, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRNMUgnUkNw 

John is joined by William T. Reid IV, Senior Founding Partner of Reid Collins & Tsai LLP, and author of Fighting Bullies: The Case for a Career in Plaintiff's Law.  They discuss Bill's view that young lawyers are too often funneled into BigLaw careers before they understand the full range of options available in the legal profession—particularly plaintiffs' work.The impetus for Bill's book came from his experience teaching at the University of Texas School of Law and advising students who often expressed frustration at the lack of career guidance and exposure to alternative paths.  The law school hiring process, particularly the On-Campus Interview (OCI) process, now often takes place in January of the students' first year—rather than the fall of the students' second year.  This, Bill believes, is too soon for the students to have meaningful legal experience or career insights.  The result is a “conveyor belt” that locks students into BigLaw roles primarily for the salary, often at the expense of passion, fulfillment, and long-term satisfaction.Bill's book makes the case for the personal and professional rewards of plaintiffs' practice.  He emphasizes that his firm, Reid Collins, generally only brings cases after extensive pre-suit investigation.  This selectivity allows him to accept cases he believes in which brings deep meaning and satisfaction to his work.  He argues that plaintiffs' lawyers, especially those focused on commercial and institutional wrongdoing, play a vital societal role by holding wrongdoers accountable, especially when government agencies fail to act.  While not every case—or plaintiff's lawyer—meets a high moral bar, the ability to choose meaningful work and act on principle often leads to a highly satisfying career in law.Finally, John and Bill also discuss the evolution of the legal profession, including how artificial intelligence may reshape law firm structures by increasing efficiency and altering the traditional BigLaw pyramid.  These changes may lead to firms pursuing alternative billing structures to traditional hourly billing.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Plaintiffs suing the Trump administration over its energy policies argue the executive orders to boost fossil fuel development jeopardize their health. A federal court in Missoula heard arguments in the case this week.

Description: Dive into the chilling true crime saga of Michelle Lyn Michaud and James Anthony Daveggio, the infamous killer couple who terrorized California and Nevada in the 1990s. From abductions in a modified "torture van" to brutal rapes, tortures, and the murder of Vanessa Samson, this episode uncovers their meth-fueled rampage, twisted fantasies inspired by other killers, and the shocking assaults on victims including their own family members. Explore Jim's violent youth, Michelle's dark past, and their deadly partnership that led to death row. Perfect for fans of serial killers, couple murderers, true crime podcasts, kidnapping cases, and forensic psychology. #TrueCrime #SerialKillers #DeathRow #MichaudDaveggio #MurderMysterySources:Parker, RJ. ABDUCTION: The Minivan Murders: Killer Couple Michelle Michaud and James Daveggio. Kindle Edition. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,S110294 v. JAMES ANTHONY DAVEGGIO and MICHELLE LYN MICHAUD, Alameda CountyDefendants and Appellants. Super. Ct. No. 134147. Filed 4/26/18.https://maamodt.asp.radford.edu/psyc%20405/serial%20killers/Daveggio,%20James%20_fall,%202007_.pdfUnited States of America, Plaintiff-appellee v. Michelle Lyn Michaud, Defendant-appellant, 268 F.3d 728 (9th Cir. 2001). In the Supreme Court of the United States MICHELLE LYN MICHAUD, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA. No. 18-5079. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-5079/55822/20180727182319666_Opposition.pdfCourt Upholds Death Sentences In Pleasanton Woman's Murder. For CBS News. April 26, 2018.

Two Native American voters in the Chippewa Cree Tribe are suing Chouteau County for minimizing the impact of Native voters' voices in local elections. They say at-large elections prevent Native Americans in the county from getting a fair say in who represents them.

The Trump administration has sought to advance its extreme and often unlawful agenda through the strategic use and abuse of the law and legal system, including Executive Orders targeting law firms and litigation and misconduct complaints against district court judges. While some lawyers and courts are holding the administration accountable, others are quick to capitulate. Mark Lemley joins Christopher Wright Durocher to talk about the administration's abuse of the law and legal system and what can be done to stop it. Join the Progressive Legal Movement Today: ACSLaw.orgHost: Christopher Wright Durocher, Vice President of Policy and ProgramGuest: Mark Lemley, William H. Neukom Professor of Law and Director of the Program in Law, Science and Technology, Stanford Law School; Partner, Lex Lumina, LLPLink: Amicus Brief of 676 Law Professors in Support of Plaintiff, WilmerHale v. U.S. Dep't of Just., 25-cv-917 (Apr. 11, 2025)Link: As July 4 Approaches, Supreme Court Signs Away American Democracy, by Mark LemleyVisit the Podcast Website: Broken Law Podcast Email the Show: Podcast@ACSLaw.org Follow ACS on Social Media: Facebook | Instagram | Bluesky | LinkedIn | YouTube -----------------Broken Law: About the law, who it serves, and who it doesn't.----------------- Production House: Flint Stone Media Copyright of American Constitution Society 2025.

Episode 76 In the finale of The Flora Four: Between Rumors and Reality, we bring the story full circle. Nearly a decade after the fire that claimed the lives of four young sisters in Flora, Indiana, we examine why this case remains unsolved — and who really benefitted from the official arson ruling. From conflicting investigator depositions to shifting fire science, we uncover how shaky evidence and rushed conclusions may have shaped the narrative. Was this truly a deliberate act of arson, or did the label itself protect powerful interests from facing criminal negligence charges? As we lay out the flaws in the investigation, we revisit the landlords, insurance money, and the haunting possibility that the truth was buried under bureaucracy and rumor. The families still wait for justice — but what if the answers don't point where officials want you to look? Join us as we close this case file, pulling together the fire science, the politics, and the human toll of a community still searching for accountability. Background music by Not Notoriously Coordinated  The Crime to Burn Patreon - The Cult of Steve - is LIVE NOW! Go join and get all the unhinged you can handle. Click here to be sanctified.  Get your Crime to Burn Merch! https://crimetoburn.myspreadshop.com Please follow us on Instagram, X, Facebook, TikTok and Youtube for the latest news on this case. You can email us at crimetoburn@gmail.com We welcome any constructive feedback and would greatly appreciate a 5 star rating and review.  If you need a way to keep your canine contained, you can also support the show by purchasing a Pawious wireless dog fence using our affiliate link and use the code "crimetoburn" at checkout to receive 10% off. Pawious, because our dog Winston needed a radius, not a rap sheet.  Sources: If you want to go down the rabbit hole on this case, there are lots of theories and discussion on this board, just be warned, you could get lost in there for weeks. r/FloraFour. Reddit community archive. Link For a complete source list, please also see show notes for Episodes 74 and 75. Additional sources used in Part 3 include the following. Deposition of Gaylin Rose, Plaintiff, Gaylin Rose v. Birch Tree Holdings, LLC, et al., U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Cause No. 2:18-cv-00197-JTM (September 25, 2020).

Greg Bishop gets to the latest in gun ban litigation with plaintiffs challenging Cook County's ban asking the U.S. Supreme Court to take the case. This comes as the statewide ban a district judge found unconstitutional is cued up for appeals' court arguments next month.

Dive into one of America's most brutal true crime stories: the 1984 Geronimo Bank Murders. In this gripping episode of Almost Fiction, uncover how two debt-ridden lovers, Jay Wesley Neill and Robert Grady Johnson, turned desperation into a deadly Oklahoma bank robbery, stabbing and shooting innocent victims, including a pregnant woman, in a small-town heist gone horrifically wrong. Explore conflicting confessions, survivor testimonies, and the long fight for justice that ended in execution and life sentences. Perfect for fans of dark history, unsolved mysteries, and chilling true crime podcasts. Follow for daily cases on Instagram @almostfictionpod.Sources:https://www.upi.com/Archives/1985/05/20/A-teenage-survivor-of-a-bloody-bank-robbery-Monday/7006485409600/Geronimo bank robber put to death. By News on 6. December 12th 2002, 12:00 am.https://murderpedia.org/male.N/n1/neill-jay-wesley.htmhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geronimo_bank_murdersJay Wesley Neill, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Gary Gibson, Warden, Oklahoma State Penitentiary, Respondent-appellee, 278 F.3d 1044 (10th Cir. 2001) December 7, 2001.JAY WESLEY NEILL, APPELLANT v. STATE OF OKLAHOMA, APPELLEEOklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. OK CR 69 896 P.2d 537. Case Number: F-92-975. 1994.http://www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/death/US/neill818.htmhttps://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-10th-circuit/1050363.htmlJOHNSON v. MULLIN. United States Court of Appeals,Tenth Circuit. Robert Grady JOHNSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Mike MULLIN, Warden, Respondent-Appellee. No. 06-6260. Decided: October 26, 2007.

A guest panel discusses aircraft accidents, air turbulence injuries, airline and airframer culture, pilot training and experience, FAA shortfalls, and other topics that impact the flying public. In the news, the 90-second evacuation rule, the fatal Jeju Air crash at Muan Airport, and Zunum Air's suit against Boeing for the misappropriation of trade secrets. Guests Chris Manno became an Air Force pilot after graduation from college and served seven years as a squadron pilot in the Pacific. He flew as a pilot with American Airlines for 35 years and was a captain for 29 of those years. Over his career, Chris logged over 25,000 hours of jet time. He's a cartoonist and author of many books. Chris has just written a new book based on actual airline incidents titled Whiskey Air. It's a fictionalized deep-dive into actual airline incidents. James Albright co-wrote Whiskey Air. He's a fellow USAF pilot (they flew together in a squadron in PACAF) who went on to command a USAF squadron, then retired and spent another twenty years as a corporate pilot. He also writes safety analysis for AvWeek. Erin Applebaum is a Partner in the aviation practice at Kreindler & Kreindler LLP. She represents the interests of passengers severely injured or killed in general aviation and commercial airline accidents. Erin is currently on the team representing numerous victims of the DCA midair collision. She's also handling cases on behalf of several passengers from the February 2025 Delta Air Lines crash in Toronto. Erin is a foremost authority on litigating claims governed by the Montreal Convention, the international treaty on commercial air travel. Erin's other major cases at Kreindler include the Southwest Airlines Flight 1380 catastrophic engine failure and the Liberty Helicopters doors-off tour helicopter crash in the East River. For the past six years, Erin has played a key role in Kreindler's fight against Boeing in the Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302/737 MAX litigation. She was appointed by the court as a member of the Plaintiffs' Executive Committee for the Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 cases and was instrumental in the victims' families' effort to overturn the Deferred Prosecution Agreement between Boeing and the Department of Justice. Discussion In this episode's roundtable, our guests bring their knowledge and experience to the discussion of important issues faced by the industry, including:  The 90-second evacuation rule. The liability of the airlines, airports, and the regulators. Boeing's corporate culture, reputation, and the DOJ's criminal case. Profit motives over safety. Decision making in the cockpit and being the captain that sometimes has to say, “no.” Lack of FAA oversight resources and the Aviation Safety Action Program (ASAP). Delegated oversight authority. Injuries sustained due to air turbulence. See: Whiskey Air on Amazon Chris Manno's author page Code 7700 page by James Albright Rough Skies Ahead: Legal Options for Turbulence Injuries [PDF] by Erin Applebaum and Taylor Sandella. Aviation News Senator Pushes FAA to Examine Aircraft Evacuation Rules Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) sent a letter to the FAA asking the agency to compare its 90-second evacuation standard against recent incidents. The rule originated in the late 1960s and requires aircraft manufacturers to demonstrate during certification that all passengers and crew can evacuate the aircraft within 90 seconds, even with only half of the emergency exits available. Duckworth's letter: “While FAA has yet to disclose how long any of the referenced passenger evacuations took, these incidents once again raise serious questions about FAA's 90-second evacuation standard as well as FAA's assumptions about how evacuations occur in real world conditions (such as the assumption every passenger will comply with instructions to deplane without carry-on bags).”

In the 1980s, a group of wealthy young men calling themselves the Billionaire Boys Club set out to make millions under the leadership of charismatic con man Joe Hunt. What started as a flashy business-meets-brotherhood venture quickly spiraled into a Ponzi scheme, manipulation, and two brutal murders — one of a fellow scam artist, and another of a wealthy father kidnapped for ransom. Thank you to this week's sponsors! See thicker, stronger, faster-growing hair with less shedding in just 3-6 months with Nutrafol. For a limited time, Nutrafol is offering our listeners $10 off your first month's subscription and free shipping when you go to Nutrafol.com and enter the promo code MOMS.  Get organized, refreshed, and back to routine for way less. Head to Wayfair.com right now to shop all things home. Wayfair. Every style. Every home. Elevate your fall wardrobe essentials with Quince. Go to Quince.com/moms  for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns.  Right now save 20% on your FIRST order and get a free cat toy at PrettyLitter.com/moms. Terms and conditions apply. See site for details. Check-out bonus episodes up on Spotify and Apple podcast now! Get new episodes a day early and ad free, plus chat episodes, at Patreon.com/momsandmysteriespodcast .    To advertise on the show, contact sales@advertisecast.com or visit https://www.advertisecast.com/MomsandMysteriesATrueCrimePodcast.    Check-out Moms and Mysteries to find links to our tiktok, youtube, twitter, instagram and more.      Sources: Billionaire Boys Club Bodyguard Admits Slaying in TV Interview May 21, 1993 Free Joe Hunt https://www.newspapers.com/image/402515483/?match=1&terms=%22Billionaire%20boys%20club%22 Feb 3, 1987 HUNT v. PLILER CSP CDC (2003) | FindLaw https://www.newspapers.com/image/402516769/?match=1&terms=%22Billionaire%20boys%20club%22 Feb 4, 1987 https://www.newspapers.com/image/404875828/?match=1&terms=%22Billionaire%20boys%20club%22 Feb 20, 1987 Charges In Famed Death Dropped / Victim's son accused in `billionaire' slaying Nov 7, 2000 Former Billionaire Boy wants drug trial moved | Local News | smdailyjournal.com Oct 21, 2005 Ex-Billionaire Boys Club member sought for vehicular manslaughter | Reuters May 13, 2013 brian eslaminia letter : r/MenendezBrothers https://web.archive.org/web/20160305061613/https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1987/02/07/saga-of-fast-track-group-told-at-trial/41c5b752-dcfe-46db-bb36-c13e6b29531b/ Feb 7, 1987 https://web.archive.org/web/20210804131916/https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a37200506/billonaire-boys-club-joe-hunt-true-story/ original, Sept. 1986, updated Aug 4, 2021 No. 13-56207 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOSEPH HUNT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. TIM V. VIRGA, How the 'Billionaire Boys Club' Led to Murder Aug 13, 2106 https://charleyproject.org/case/ronald-george-levin WITNESS SAYS CLUB FOUNDER DIRECTED MURDER OF BEVERLY HILLS MAN - The New York Times 1987 https://web.archive.org/web/20171101155156/https://www.nytimes.com/1987/04/23/us/murder-conviction-for-club-leader.html A Timeline of the Entire Menendez Brothers Murder Case https://mail.crimelibrary.org/notorious_murders/young/joe_hunt/11.html https://mail.crimelibrary.org/notorious_murders/young/joe_hunt/2.html https://mail.crimelibrary.org/notorious_murders/young/joe_hunt/3.html https://mail.crimelibrary.org/notorious_murders/young/joe_hunt/4.html https://mail.crimelibrary.org/notorious_murders/young/joe_hunt/5.html https://mail.crimelibrary.org/notorious_murders/young/joe_hunt/6.html https://mail.crimelibrary.org/notorious_murders/young/joe_hunt/7.html https://mail.crimelibrary.org/notorious_murders/young/joe_hunt/8.html https://mail.crimelibrary.org/notorious_murders/young/joe_hunt/9.html Joe Hunt, Plaintiff-appellant, v. National Broadcasting Company, Inc.; Itc Productions, Inc.,defendants-appellees, 872 F.2d 289 (9th Cir. 1989) :: Justia The True Story of the Billionaire Boys Club Original 1986, Sept.  The Billionaire Boys' Club Billionaire Boys Club Founder Convicted Of Murder Is Asking Gov. Brown For Parole - CBS Los Angeles https://www.newspapers.com/image/404116359/?match=1&terms=Dosti Jan 26, 1988 https://www.newspapers.com/image/404116662/?match=1&terms=Dosti https://freejoehunt.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/box-4-rt-volume-53-of-101-pages-7982-8195.pdf.pdf ESLAMINIA v. WHITE (1998) | FindLaw Two BBC members get life in prison - UPI Archives Billionaire Boys Club's Joe Hunt seeks cut in life sentence | News, Sports, Jobs - Times Republican The Billionaire Boys Club Podcast Tells a Twisted Tale of Greed, Murder and 1980s Excess August 3, 2020 Governor Gavin Newsom 1303 10th Street, Suite 1173 Sacramento, CA 95814 Re: Joe Hunt https://www.newspapers.com/image/402980517/?match=1&terms=James%20Pittman https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=iAYqAAAAIBAJ&pg=6928,221426 https://ciris.mt.cdcr.ca.gov/details?cdcrNumber=D6186 https://freejoehunt.com/reward/

Summary:Boosting law firm client satisfaction doesn't have to be complicated. In this episode of The Effective Lawyer, Zinda Law Group CEO Jack Zinda shares a simple, proven system that can help you reach a 95% satisfaction rate or higher. You'll learn how to set communication expectations, keep clients informed, and resolve issues before they become complaints.What You'll Learn:    The #1 factor in improving client satisfaction in a law firm    How to outline the legal process for clients in clear, simple terms    The “Client Satisfaction Alert” system for catching concerns early    Practical attorney communication tips to reduce complaints    Why team training is essential for consistent client experience